run_shortcut

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

Annotations already flag readOnly=false, openWorld=true and destructive=true, yet the description still adds real information: the shortcut is arbitrary user-owned automation that can reach external services, and the run goes through the Shortcuts CLI so no TCC prompt appears. It also discloses the return shape (pointer plus bounded output snippet) and describes dry_run as resolving without executing.

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-loaded with the action and identifier guidance, and every clause carries signal. It is dense to the point of being parenthetical-heavy ('TCC prompt', the long aside about web services), which costs a little readability.

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?

Covers the side-effect profile, identifier resolution, input piping, dry-run preview, and even the return value despite an output schema existing. For a three-parameter tool that executes arbitrary automation, nothing material is missing.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: `name` accepts either a plain name or a UUID id, `input_text` is optional and piped into the shortcut, and `dry_run=True` resolves the shortcut and reports what would run. All three parameters gain semantics the schema does not provide.

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 and resource ('Run a Shortcut') plus the two accepted identifiers, the optional piped input, and the dry-run mode. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the `shortcuts` sibling, which supplies the id, so an agent knows this is the execution tool rather than the listing tool.

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?

Gives clear selection guidance between the two identifier forms ('the id is unambiguous across renames/duplicate names') and a concrete preview path via `dry_run=True`. It does not state outright when not to use it, but the mode guidance is specific enough to steer invocation.

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