script_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the action ('Run') but doesn't describe what happens during execution (e.g., synchronous/asynchronous, side effects, error handling, permissions required, or rate limits). For a tool that likely performs mutations, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of running a script (likely a mutation with side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, execution context, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with 8 parameters and significant potential impact, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., scriptId, fields, alt, key). This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of how parameters interact or affect execution.

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 verb ('Run') and resource ('a Google Apps Script'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this execution tool from sibling tools that focus on metrics, processes, projects, deployments, versions, or content updates. However, it doesn't specify what 'run' entails (e.g., execution of a function, deployment, or script trigger).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a script ID from another tool), appropriate contexts (e.g., testing vs. production), or comparisons to siblings like 'script_projects_deployments_create' or 'update_script_content'. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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