qgis_run_algorithm

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden. It explicitly states that the tool 'can create, overwrite, or delete data' and should be treated as a potentially destructive operation needing user consent. This is clear and complete behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely concise—two sentences plus a brief note—with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the warning about destructive nature is immediately after. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (dynamic algorithm behavior) and the presence of an output schema (as per context signals), the description adequately explains the purpose, parameter usage, and safety concerns. It does not describe potential outputs or variations across algorithms, which is acceptable as the output schema covers return values.

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 explains that 'parameters' is passed straight through to 'processing.run' and directs users to 'qgis_algorithm_help' for expected structure. This adds critical context beyond the schema's generic 'additionalProperties: true', compensating for the 0% schema coverage. However, it does not provide explicit examples or structure for common algorithms.

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 the resource 'Processing algorithm against the open project', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from many sibling tools that operate on layers, maps, or other specific tasks.

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 instructs users to consult 'qgis_algorithm_help' for parameter expectations and warns that the operation can be destructive, advising to seek user approval. This provides clear context for safe use, though it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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