run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context – and it does: preview changes nothing, irreversible operations require the owner, and online operations need network=true. This is meaningful workflow and safety context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't state what happens if preview is skipped on an irreversible tool.

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, each earning its place, with the core dispatch action front-loaded and workflow/safety rules following. No redundancy.

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 meta-tool that dispatches arbitrary tools with nested inputs, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the description is adequate on workflow and safety but silent on what comes back from the dispatched call and how `inputs` must be shaped. An agent could still invoke it, but with uncertainty.

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 carry the load. It touches all four parameters (tool name, named inputs, mode workflow, network) but leaves the nested `inputs` object vague – no hint that it is an arbitrary key-value map conforming to the discovered tool's schema. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 tool found with discover, by its exact name') and ties itself to the discover sibling as the prerequisite. It's clear what it does, though it doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like describe or undo beyond the discover reference.

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 explicit conditional guidance: use mode=preview first for mutating tools, then mode=apply; irreversible tools need the owner; online tools need network=true. That's clear when-to-use context, but it never says when NOT to use this tool or when describe/undo would be the better choice.

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