run_operation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds value beyond that by explaining that destructiveness is per-operation and must be checked via `read_only` in the find_operation result — a concrete protocol the annotations cannot express. It doesn't describe error behavior or result handling, but an output schema exists.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, the caution follows, and the Args block is short and scannable. Every sentence earns its place; only the docstring-style Args formatting is slightly redundant with the schema's own titles.

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 meta-dispatch tool, the definition covers the essentials: where names come from, the dynamic argument shape, and the destructiveness check. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations carry the read/write profile. Minor gaps remain on error handling and on when to prefer typed siblings.

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 carry the load, and it does: `name` is the operation name from find_operation, and `arguments` is 'its arguments as listed there, by name.' This explains the dynamic, discover-then-pass shape of the freeform arguments object, which the schema alone cannot convey. It could be slightly richer on how argument keys map to the discovered signature.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run any Plex API operation by name') and immediately ties itself to the discovery tool ('as found with find_operation'). An agent can distinguish this generic dispatcher from the concrete list_*/get_* siblings, though it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer the typed tools over this one.

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?

Gives actionable context: obtain the name from find_operation, and check the `read_only` flag before invoking an operation the user did not request. This is a real when-to-use / when-to-be-cautious rule. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming typed alternatives for common cases.

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