execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the 100-step ceiling, the non-transactional partial-failure behavior, and the fact that dry_run only checks syntax/permissions. This is strong behavior context, though it does not address auth or side-effect details of individual operations.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and step format. Every sentence adds essential information: scope, return type, dry_run behavior, and failure semantics. 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?

For a three-parameter batch tool with an output schema, the definition covers the main contract: step shape, limit, dry_run, and partial failures. Missing timeout semantics and explicit sibling routing are the only material omissions, so it falls just short of fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the steps object format and dry_run's effect, but it leaves timeout undocumented beyond its name/default. That is a notable gap for a tool with only three 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 a specific action ('Execute up to 100 ... steps') and gives the step shape as {'op': name, ...arguments}. It also distinguishes its return style from inspect/capture-style tools by saying it returns 'counts/errors, not full scene data', though it never names the sibling tools explicitly.

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 dry_run note gives clear guidance for validating a batch before running it, and the partial-failure warning implies the tool should not be used where atomicity is required. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use comparison with the sibling tools inspect, discover, or capture.

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