Execute official JSON API command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that commands run 'verbatim' and points to documentation, but does not warn that arbitrary destructive operations (e.g. deletes) can be invoked or how errors are surfaced; with annotations carrying the risk profile this lands at a baseline 3.

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?

Three tight clauses, front-loaded with the escape-hatch framing, then example, then routing rule and reference link. Dense and purposeful, though the inline JSON example makes it slightly busier than strictly necessary.

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 generic command executor with no output schema, the description gives the reference URL and the invocation format an agent needs. Return values are inherently command-dependent and cannot be enumerated, so the omission is reasonable rather than a 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 baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete worked example showing how 'parameters' nests ({navigatorTreeId: {type: 'ProjectMap'}}), which is genuine syntax value beyond the schema's generic 'Command parameters object'.

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+resource ('runs any official Archicad JSON API command verbatim') and labels itself an escape hatch, immediately distinguishing it from the many dedicated sibling tools. The concrete example command makes the mechanism 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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Prefer the dedicated tools; use this for commands without one.' This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use, so an agent can decide without inference.

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