shortcuts_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about side effects (shortcuts can do anything on the machine), whether the call blocks until completion, what happens if the name is ambiguous or the shortcut doesn't exist, or whether macOS automation permission is required. The trailing 'the way Mac users already automate...' fragment adds marketing flavor, not behavioral facts.

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?

Brief and front-loaded with the action, which is good. However it is truncated ('...already automate...') and the dangling clause does not earn its place; the remaining sentence should carry usage or behavioral detail instead.

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 tool that executes arbitrary user-defined automations, with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits return behavior, permission requirements, failure modes, and the schema gap around the missing name/identifier input. An agent cannot confidently invoke this.

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?

The schema declares zero properties, yet the description claims the tool takes a shortcut 'name or identifier'. That is a description/schema mismatch an agent will stumble on — it has no parameter to pass. The 0-param baseline would normally be 4, but the description here implies input that the schema does not define.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Runs ... macOS Shortcuts ... by name or identifier'. That distinguishes it reasonably from siblings shortcuts_list and shortcuts_view, which are read-only inspection tools. It stops short of full sibling differentiation (no explicit 'use shortcuts_view to inspect first'), but the action is unambiguous.

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 prerequisite (e.g. must the shortcut already be installed/authorized?), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the execution counterpart to shortcuts_list/shortcuts_view purely from the name.

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