Run Action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what side effects running an action may have or how destructive it can be. It does not contradict annotations, but it fails to enrich the agent's understanding of execution consequences beyond the schema.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It is concise, though it omits essential context, so it does not earn a 5.

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 is too sparse for a tool with five parameters and an output schema. It does not explain what constitutes an 'action,' how input_params, instance_name, and instance_description are used, or how this tool relates to sibling run tools. The output schema covers return values, but the execution context and selection criteria are missing.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all five parameters. The description adds no further parameter meaning—it only restates the relationship between resource_name and action_name, which the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 'run[s] an action that is associated with a Lifecycle Manager resource,' specifying a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like run_command or run_service, so the agent may not know when this action-based execution is the right choice.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about selecting it over other run tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and sibling list alone.

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