Execute Action

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false (mutation), openWorldHint=true (dynamic action types), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds valuable context: 'Actions are the primary way to change object state' and mentions the Event Bus mechanism, which helps the agent understand this is a state-changing operation with event-driven architecture.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose statement, examples, and prerequisites. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and comprehensive annotations, the description provides adequate context. It explains the tool's role in the system (primary state change mechanism via Event Bus) and prerequisites. The main gap is no output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values given the structured annotations.

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 100%, providing clear documentation for all three parameters. The description adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema, mentioning that 'payload depends on action type schema' and that actions change object state, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Execute an action on a tokenized object via the Event Bus' with specific examples (mint, transfer, redeem, update). It distinguishes from siblings like dual_get_object (read) or dual_update_object (direct update), but doesn't explicitly contrast with dual_batch_actions (batch execution).

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 implies usage context ('Actions are the primary way to change object state') and provides prerequisites (action_type must match registered type, object must belong to allowed template). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like dual_batch_actions for multiple actions or dual_update_object for direct updates.

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