run_operation

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that arguments are validated before execution, errors use stable codes, validation covers unknown operations and path safety, and execution follows the same path as execute_plan. This adds meaningful behavioral context. No contradiction with the annotations is apparent; the generic 'any operation' framing does not directly conflict with idempotentHint or destructiveHint.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The later paragraphs explain the catalog growth rationale and validation behavior, which are useful but somewhat expansive; still, each part carries information an agent needs to use a generic dispatch tool safely.

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 operation runner with an open-ended arguments object, the description is complete: it names the discovery tool, tells how to get parameter details, explains error behavior, and connects execution semantics to execute_plan. The output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation here, and annotations already cover the idempotency/safety profile.

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?

The schema provides 0% description coverage and arguments is an opaque object, but the description compensates by explaining that parameters are validated against the catalog and that list_operations with detail=true returns exact parameters and worked examples. It gives the agent a concrete path to resolve parameter semantics without attempting to enumerate a dynamic catalog.

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 opens with 'Run ANY catalog operation by name', which is a specific verb plus resource and immediately clarifies this is the generic catch-all runner. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the dedicated siblings by explaining that most operations have no tool of their own and that list_operations is the discovery mechanism.

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 clearly says to discover operations with list_operations (using detail=true) and then call them here, and it frames the listed tools as the 'handful an agent reaches for constantly.' It does not explicitly state 'use a dedicated sibling when one exists,' but the context strongly implies this is the fallback for the long tail of operations.

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