sap_run_guixt_script

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full burden and does disclose two important traits: the GuiXT opt-in/auth precondition and that 'Completion is asynchronous'. What it omits is whether the script can mutate or destroy SAP state and what happens on a failed script run, so the behavioral picture is good but not complete.

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?

One dense sentence, semicolon-separated into three clauses, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every clause (what, precondition, async nature) earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers action, target, precondition and async behavior, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gap is that it doesn't hint how to observe completion (e.g. via sap_get_screen) after the asynchronous submit.

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 0% for the single required 'script' parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by calling it a 'preinstalled' script (i.e. a name of an existing script, not a path or inline content), but it never clarifies the naming/format rules implied by the schema pattern (alphanumerics, underscore/hyphen, .txt suffix).

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 (Submit) and resource (a preinstalled GuiXT InputScript) scoped to 'this exact SAP window', which is clearly distinct from the low-level siblings like sap_click, sap_type and sap_press. It stops short of naming an alternative or contrasting explicitly with them, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 prerequisite 'requires configured GuiXT opt-in' gives real context for when this tool will work, and 'preinstalled' implies the script must already exist. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer a GuiXT script over the sibling primitives (sap_type/sap_click/sap_send_vkey), leaving the choice to inference.

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