cascadeur_run_action

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly warning 'Dispatch is not verified success' and noting that many actions are toggles or depend on selection/license. This is valuable behavioral disclosure that the destructiveHint annotation alone does not convey, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and important caveats in the second. There is no filler, and every word adds value for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool with destructiveHint, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter roles, and behavioral caveats. It leaves out specific error handling or result interpretation, but the 'not verified success' note covers the main risk. Slightly more detail on how to determine success could elevate it, but it is adequate for the complexity.

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 compensates by linking 'name' to actions from list_actions and 'expected_scene' to an explicitly named scene. It does not specify exact formats or where to find scene names, but the mapping is enough to make both parameters meaningful beyond their bare names.

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 specific verb ('Dispatch'), a resource ('a named action from list_actions'), and a target ('an explicitly named scene'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling cascadeur_list_actions, which lists actions rather than runs them, and gives enough clarity that an agent knows exactly 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 solid usage context: actions come from list_actions, and many are toggles or depend on selection/license, signaling when care is needed. It does not explicitly name exclusions or alternatives, but the reference to list_actions and the caveats give clear situational guidance without needing an explicit when-not.

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