Run Tool

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the confirm flag is required for destructive tools when CHECK_CONFIRM_DESTRUCTIVE is enabled. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description clarifies the confirmation mechanism. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but given annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 structured and clear, with each sentence contributing value. It could be slightly more concise, but it avoids redundancy and is easy to parse. For a tool with three parameters and special behavior, the length is appropriate.

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?

Given the complexity (3 params, 1 required, 0% schema coverage, output schema exists), the description covers the essential aspects: how to call the tool, format of arguments, and confirm flag usage. It does not explain return values, but an output schema is present. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description explains all three parameters in detail: tool_name with examples, arguments as JSON string or dict with an example, and confirm as a flag for destructive tools. The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Execute an API tool by name with the given arguments.' It uses a specific verb ('execute') and resource ('API tool by name'), and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Use search_tools first to find the tool name and its parameter schema.'

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 usage guidance: 'Use search_tools first to find the tool name and its parameter schema.' It also explains when the confirm parameter is needed for destructive tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond search_tools.

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