run

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that preview changes nothing, apply changes things, and irreversible tools need the owner, but omits error behavior, permissions beyond 'owner', and return characteristics.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the critical safety workflow. No wasted words.

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 tool is a complex meta-executor with a nested inputs object, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description covers the preview/apply safety flow but omits how to specify the tool, expected inputs shape, discovery path, and return behavior, leaving it incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the mode enum (preview/apply) and hints that inputs are named, but leaves the required 'tool' parameter and the nested inputs object structure unexplained.

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 (run) and resource (tool) and notes that inputs are named, so the action is clear. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as discover, describe, or undo, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Provides an explicit mode workflow: use preview first for changing tools, then apply; irreversible tools require the owner. It does not name alternatives or when not to use run, so it stops short of a 5.

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