execute_script

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description adds context by explaining the dry run capability (omit confirm_token) and polling behavior (wait=true). This goes beyond the annotations by detailing how to safely execute and monitor. No contradiction.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the main action, and the second covers the two key usage patterns. It is efficiently front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 covers the core workflow (dry run and polling) but lacks explanations for required parameters like query (what machines?) and script_id (from list_scripts?). With 6 parameters and destructive potential, more detail on parameter usage is needed. However, the output schema exists, reducing the need to describe return values.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains confirm_token (omit for dry run) and wait (set true for polling), but does not describe query, script_id, username, or wait_timeout. These are critical, especially the required query and script_id. The description adds limited meaning for only 2 of 6 parameters.

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 'Run a stored script on matched machines', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scripts, and there is no ambiguity about its primary action.

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 explicit guidance: 'Dry run first (omit confirm_token)' and 'Set wait=true to poll the resulting activity to completion'. This clearly indicates when to use dry runs and how to wait for results. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the advice is practical and sufficient.

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