fm_run_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: it does not say whether the script can mutate records, whether it is read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, or how errors are surfaced. For a tool that runs arbitrary server-side scripts, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 4-parameter, mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits side effects, return behavior, and error handling. An agent has almost nothing to rely on beyond the parameter names.

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 coverage is 100%, so layout, script, database, and parameter are each documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning, such as how the script parameter is passed or how the layout context affects execution.

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 (Execute) and resource (FileMaker script), so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It does not differentiate from any sibling or clarify scope, but the action itself 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling data tools (query_records, create_record, update_record, etc.), nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid layout context or which scripts are available. Usage is inferred 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.