Run PowerShell against Inventor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent and non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: full access under the user's permissions, the ability to modify/close documents, and a hard output contract (exactly one line of JSON) with a worked example.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the helper vocabulary, then the output contract, then routing guidance — a logical order with no filler. It is dense because the escape hatch carries a lot of essential contract, but each sentence earns its place.

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 high-risk, no-output-schema tool this is complete: it covers execution scope, permissions, destructive potential, the predefined environment, the strict JSON output requirement, and when to avoid it. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or decide not to.

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 baseline is 3 for both parameters. The description goes further on the `script` param by documenting the predefined helpers ($inv, $MISSING, Get-Doc, FaceInfo) and the required JSON output shape — meaningful semantics the schema does not carry. The `timeout` param is left to the schema.

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 arbitrary PowerShell with full access to Inventor's COM API') and frames itself precisely as an escape hatch relative to the other tools. An agent immediately knows this is the general-purpose fallback, distinct from the narrow siblings like smallest_faces or face_neighbors.

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?

Explicitly gives the when-to-use condition ('anything the other tools don't cover') and the when-not ('Prefer the dedicated tools when they fit'), plus a risk caveat that it can modify or close documents. It does not name which specific siblings apply to which case, but the routing rule is clear.

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