tapir_run_command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description adds useful nuance beyond the annotation by clarifying the destructiveness is conditional ('depending on the command') and that parameters are validated against the command's input schema, which tells the agent how failures arise.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes: capability, validation mechanism, and mutation risk.

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 generic command dispatcher there is no output schema, and the description does not cover return shape, error behavior, or how to discover valid command names (beyond a soft pointer). It covers the essentials for invocation but leaves meaningful gaps for a tool whose behavior depends entirely on an opaque string parameter.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the pointer that 'parameters' must conform to the target command's input schema (via tapir_describe_command), which is genuinely helpful but does not elaborate individual parameter formats.

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 (Runs) and resource (any Tapir command), which is distinguishable from siblings like tapir_list_commands and tapir_describe_command. However, it does not differentiate itself from the similarly-named archicad_run_api_command, leaving some ambiguity about which dispatcher to pick.

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?

It implicitly routes the agent to tapir_describe_command for parameter lookup and warns that data may be modified or deleted, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus archicad_run_api_command or the dedicated typed tools. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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