ms_execute_task_request

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool is 'intentionally plan-only' and will not execute anything, which is critical behavioral information that prevents the agent from expecting side effects. It also hints at 'gates' that must be reviewed, adding useful context, even though it stops short of describing the full output or side-effect profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two concise sentences totaling 33 words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a practical usage note in the second. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 6 parameters and no annotations, making it moderately complex. The description only covers the high-level plan-only behavior and left the agent guessing about parameter meanings, the nature of 'gates,' and what constitutes a high-level workflow. While an output schema exists, the input side is severely under-specified for reliable selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the six parameters (request, keep_job_dir, input_structure, input_trajectory, output_directory, calculation_context) or their meaning. The only reference to parameters is a generic directive to 'review its typed parameters,' which offers no semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the function: 'Plan a high-level workflow without executing it.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from execution-oriented tools by noting that natural-language requests are 'intentionally plan-only.' This effectively separates it from siblings like md_task_submit or ms_recommend_workflow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: this tool is for planning, and the agent should then 'Call the selected controlled tool explicitly after reviewing its typed parameters and gates.' This tells the agent when to use it (before execution) and what to do after, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.