task_execute

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, signaling mutation and non-idempotency. The description adds that it returns a 'real run result' and is useful for validating against 'actual browser behavior', which conveys that the tool performs a real browser execution with side effects. This adds context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences: the first states the core action, the second adds a practical use case. Both are concise and directly relevant, with no fluff or redundant information. The main purpose is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 primary purpose and a use case, and the annotations handle the safety profile (destructive, non-idempotent). It mentions returning a 'real run result' but does not specify the exact output structure, which could be useful. However, given the tool's simplicity and lack of an output schema, it is adequately complete for an agent to decide to call it.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters: taskId is the unique ID, and variables are key-value pairs for execution variables. The description does not add any parameter-specific details. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate—no extra value is provided beyond what the schema already offers.

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 clearly states the action: 'Execute a saved automation task by ID and return its real run result.' This is specific with a verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like execution_list (which lists runs) and browser_open (which opens a browser). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides a clear use case: 'This is also useful for validating newly created or updated tasks against actual browser behavior and output.' This implies when to use it—when you need a real execution result. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to guide selection. A stronger definition would name a sibling like execution_list for viewing past runs.

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