macro_fire

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals risk, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'run a macro'—it does not mention side effects, confirmation behavior, or what executing a macro can change on the console.

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?

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It conveys the core operation immediately, which is ideal for a simple tool name.

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 destructive, side-effect-producing tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, this bare sentence is insufficient. An agent can minimally construct a call using the schema, but it lacks the safety and confirmation semantics needed to use the tool confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain both parameters. It only clarifies that the macro is selected 'by number'; the optional 'confirm' parameter is completely undocumented, and no context is given about its effect on 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?

The description states a clear action ('Run') on a specific resource ('a macro') and the selection mechanism ('by number'). No sibling tool targets macros, so an agent can distinguish this from cue_fire, key_press, or other console tools.

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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as key_press, eos_command, or cue_fire. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about macro execution being a different path from cue or channel operations.

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