execute_reduction

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint: true) and non-idempotency, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds minor context about the scope ('one bound') and validation step ('independently revalidate'), but does not disclose what specifically is destroyed or what side effects the lifecycle has.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds meaning: 'Execute' identifies the action, 'one bound reducer lifecycle' scopes the operation, and 'independently revalidate' adds a key behavioral detail. It is appropriately concise.

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?

Despite a destructive hint and a potentially complex lifecycle, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain side effects, prerequisites, relation to plan_reduction/get_reduction, or what 'candidate revalidation' means in practice. An output schema exists, but the description still leaves significant gaps for an agent invoking this tool.

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%, and the description does not explain the purpose or expected format of plan_id. While the name suggests it identifies a reduction plan, the description fails to clarify how plan_id relates to the 'bound reducer' or how it should be obtained.

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 uses a specific action ('Execute') and a specific resource ('bound reducer lifecycle'), and mentions a secondary action ('independently revalidate its candidate'). It clearly distinguishes from planning tools like plan_reduction and querying tools like get_reduction, though the phrase 'reducer lifecycle' is somewhat jargon-heavy.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing plan from plan_reduction) or when it should not be used. Usage is only implied by the name and the single parameter.

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