execute_demo_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds specifics: rechecks snapshot/config revisions, freshness, automation modes, action limits; records one audit event; retries return original result with idempotent_replay=true without state change; unknown or changed proposals fail. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sentence separation, front-loading the core purpose. It is slightly longer than minimal but every sentence adds important behavioral or usage context, so it 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?

Given the output schema, annotations, and detailed description, everything an agent needs to know is covered: prerequisites, approval flow, idempotency, failure modes, and the synthetic demo scope. No significant gaps remain.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining that proposal_id must be the exact one from prepare_action and that confirmation is only needed in review mode, beyond what the schema states. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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's verb and resource: 'Execute an existing proposal' and scopes it to 'synthetic demo state only'. It also differentiates from siblings by referencing prepare_action and the ESPN companion for live submissions, so an agent can distinguish it from related tools.

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 explicitly says to first call prepare_action and obtain approval when requires_confirmation is true. It also states when not to use it ('Use the ESPN companion for live submissions') and describes retry and failure conditions, giving clear usage context.

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