Execute add-on command

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, non-readonly, and non-idempotent. The description adds useful context: it introduces the default namespace ('ClaudeConnector'), mentions that other add-ons work via namespaces like 'TapirCommand', and warns this is an escape hatch. It doesn't elaborate on what exactly gets destroyed or permissions needed, but it goes beyond the annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds needed context without waste. It is appropriately sized for a generic command executor.

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 description covers the essential escape-hatch nature and namespace default, which is important for a generic executor. However, given the high-risk, open-ended nature and lack of output schema, an agent might need more guidance on error handling, response format, or how to distinguish this from 'execute_json_api_command'. The omission of that sibling distinction is a notable gap.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including examples and the default namespace. The description reiterates the default namespace and gives an example namespace, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb (runs) and resource (any add-on JSON command) and explicitly labels it an 'escape hatch'. It also references the underlying API call. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish it from the sibling 'execute_json_api_command' – both sound like low-level passthroughs, leaving the agent to guess which to use.

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 term 'escape hatch' implies it's a fallback for when standard tools don't cover a need, and it points to 'list_addon_commands' for discovery. But it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use, and crucially doesn't explain the difference from 'execute_json_api_command'.

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