shortcuts_run

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

Annotations already declare destructive, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds important context beyond them: human approval is required, the shortcut workflow can have arbitrary side effects, and dynamic code is not accepted.

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?

Two tightly written sentences front-load the action and its constraints, followed by a compact version/permissions bracket. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations already present, the description covers the key behavioral risks and approval requirement. A minor ambiguity remains because _approvalId is not required in the schema despite the description implying human approval is needed.

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 schema already documents name, _approvalId, and _idempotencyKey. The description reinforces that name must be exact, but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Execute an existing Shortcut by exact name.' It distinguishes itself from shortcuts_list by requiring an existing shortcut name and specifying human approval.

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 gives clear context: run an existing shortcut by exact name, after human approval, with no dynamic code accepted. It does not explicitly name shortcuts_list as the alternative for discovering names, but the preconditions are clear enough to guide use.

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