run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that some commands are destructive and require a 'confirm' parameter to authorize, and that the result includes both registry 'status' and Dorico's response. It stops short of detailing all possible side effects or error handling, but the essentials are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise args breakdown and a one-line result note. Every sentence earns its place: examples, the destructive-confirm behavior, and the discovery resource are all covered without unnecessary padding.

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 that an output schema exists (so return details aren't the description's job), the description is sufficient for a generic command runner. It explains how to find valid commands and how to confirm destructive actions. It could optionally mention error behavior or the fact that some commands may require prior setup, but overall it's complete for its complexity.

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?

Although the schema only provides names/types, the description adds critical meaning: command_id gets concrete examples ('Edit.SelectAll', 'NoteInput.SetArticulation'), and params are explained with usage syntax ('{"confirm": true, …}') plus a note that parameter names match the catalog. This goes far beyond the raw schema and actually compensates for the 0% 'schema coverage' signal.

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 a specific action: 'Run any catalogued Dorico command by id' and positions it as 'the escape hatch for the long tail,' which distinguishes it from the specific-purpose sibling tools like add_notes or transpose. The verb 'run' plus the resource 'catalogued command' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'escape hatch for the long tail' implies this tool is for commands not covered by dedicated sibling tools, providing clear usage context. It also points to a discovery resource ('dorico://commands') for valid ids, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternative tools by name.

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