Run a learned, validated operation by passing its name and arguments; for nonfinancial writes, provide explicit action authority and set confirm_write to true.
STEP 3: Execute one learned, validated operation. Nonfinancial writes need explicit action authority and confirm_write=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| arguments | Yes | ||
| confirm_write | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing a confirmation gate (confirm_write=true) and an external authority requirement for write operations, which is exactly the kind of procedural constraint annotations cannot express.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the workflow position plus the write gate are front-loaded. It is dense rather than verbose, though the unexplained "STEP 3" label costs a little clarity for an agent that has not seen steps 1 and 2.
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?
This is a destructive, open-world dispatcher with a free-form nested arguments object and no output schema. For that complexity, the description omits what name refers to, how arguments are shaped or validated, what happens when confirm_write is false, and what a call returns, leaving major gaps for an agent to discover by failure.
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 burden, yet it only touches confirm_write and only for nonfinancial writes. The two required parameters, name and the free-form arguments object, are completely unexplained — the agent is never told that name is a catalog tool identifier or that arguments must match that tool's schema, which is the single most error-prone part of this call.
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 verb is specific enough ("Execute") and "one learned, validated operation" hints that it runs a tool previously obtained via learn_tools, but the resource is left generic as "operation" rather than stating that it invokes a catalog tool by name. The "STEP 3" prefix implies a workflow position without naming the sibling steps, so differentiation from get_tool_catalog and learn_tools is inferential rather than explicit.
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?
It gives one concrete precondition for a class of calls: nonfinancial writes require explicit action authority and confirm_write=true. That is real conditional guidance, but it is silent on financial operations, on read operations, and on what the correct path is when authority is absent, leaving the agent to guess the remaining branches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.