run_action

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run an action,' which implies execution but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, synchronicity, or return behavior. For a tool that runs actions and may create instances (given instance_name/description params), this is a significant transparency gap.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately specifies the resource type. Every word earns its place.

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 has 5 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain what an 'action' is in the Lifecycle Manager context, nor the relationship between parameters. However, the schema provides good coverage, and the output schema exists, so the description is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the overall behavior and prerequisites.

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 baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the description. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already provides clear descriptions for each field. The description does not compensate for any missing details, but it doesn't need to due to full 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 verb ('Run') and the resource ('action associated with a Lifecycle Manager resource'), providing a specific scope. It avoids being a tautology and gives some differentiation from other run tools by referencing Lifecycle Manager, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like run_command or run_service.

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 implies usage: it should be used to run actions on Lifecycle Manager resources. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternative tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The Lifecycle Manager context gives a sense of when it applies, but no further guidance is given.

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