execute_script_on_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool modifies the database (destructive effect) and returns a Task ID for monitoring. It does not mention permissions, error handling, or reversibility, but the disclosed behavior is adequate for a straightforward execution tool.

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 concise—only four sentences plus the parameter list. It front-loads the core action and constraint, with no redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity (3 parameters, no enums or nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the main purpose, constraint, and return value. However, it lacks details about potential failure modes, prerequisites, or explicit async polling behavior, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It lists the three parameters with brief explanations ('adom: ADOM name', etc.), which adds meaning beyond the bare names in the schema. However, it lacks format constraints, examples, or additional details that would fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb 'Execute' and clearly identifies the resource 'CLI script against a policy package or ADOM database.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the target environment (package/ADOM DB) rather than live devices, which other execute_script siblings handle.

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 provides explicit context: the script must have 'target=adom_database' and that execution modifies the package/ADOM DB, not a live device. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus live-device alternatives. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tool names, but the context is clear.

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