whodb_platform_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the preview/confirmation-token gate, the requirement to obtain user approval before confirming, the warning that some actions mutate hosted resources, and platform-enforced permission checks. It does not describe the shape of the returned confirmation token or action result.

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 purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent sentence carries operative information: supported actions, the schema resource to consult, the confirm gate, and workspace targeting. The dense action enumeration is long, but for a catch-all dispatcher it materially helps an agent decide whether the action exists here rather than being pure 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?

For a seven-parameter dispatch tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what actions exist, where to find payload shapes, the id/payload calling convention, the two-step confirm workflow, permission enforcement, and per-call workspace targeting. The main gap is the absence of return-value or continuation detail (e.g., how the confirmation token is used), though the sibling whodb_platform_confirm partly compensates.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds one concrete detail beyond the schema (for file/upload, payload_json requires file_path and may include folderId), but it also tells callers to 'Pass id and payload_json' while the schema marks payload_json as legacy and says to prefer payload — a mild inconsistency that offsets the added 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 opens with a clear verb+resource ('Run a hosted platform resource action through the selected project') and then enumerates concrete action names across resource types, so an agent can confirm whether an action is routed through this tool. It stops short of differentiating from dedicated siblings like whodb_platform_create, whodb_platform_delete, whodb_platform_update, or whodb_platform_restore, which cover overlapping operations.

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?

It gives real workflow sequencing: read whodb://platform/schema for payload shapes, default mode returns a confirmation token, and whodb_platform_confirm must not be called until the user approves the preview. It also notes that permission checks are enforced server-side. What is missing is any explicit statement of when to prefer the dedicated create/delete/update/restore tools over this generic dispatcher.

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