hac_groovy_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful trait (successful scripts are auto-archived), but omits that commit defaults to true (a mutation/commit side effect), what happens on script failure, and any auth/permission requirements.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the side-effect. Nothing is padded, though brevity comes at the cost of missing detail.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 6-parameter, zero-annotation mutation tool the description leaves major gaps: input selection between script/file_path, the commit default, and failure semantics.

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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description names none of them. Critically it does not explain the relationship between 'script' and 'file_path' (likely mutually exclusive inputs) or the meaning of 'commit', 'client_name', or 'archive_name'.

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?

States a specific verb ('Executes') and resource ('Groovy script') plus the execution context ('HAC Scripting Console'). No sibling covers Groovy execution, so differentiation is not needed, but the description does not tie itself to any of the hac_* siblings either.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or alternatives among the many hac_* tools. The agent must infer that this is the escape hatch for arbitrary scripting.

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