Execute Code

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: REPL-style return of the last expression and the pre-defined names (app, ui, design, component, adsk, math) available in scope. It stops short of mentioning error handling, timeouts, or whether document state persists between calls.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return semantics, then available globals. No filler; every sentence adds information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value (last expression, REPL-style), and it discloses the injected globals. For a one-parameter tool this is nearly complete, though a note on failure behavior or execution scope would close the remaining gap.

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?

There is a single required 'code' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It partially compensates by enumerating the pre-defined names the code can reference, which is real semantic value, but it never states the expected format, size limits, or that the code runs in the active document context.

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 and resource ('Run arbitrary Python in Fusion 360') and implicitly positions itself as the general-purpose escape hatch distinct from the many narrow modeling siblings like extrude or fillet. An agent can immediately tell this is not a specialized geometry tool.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'arbitrary Python' suggests a fallback when no dedicated tool fits, but the description never says when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g. use extrude instead of scripting an extrusion) or when this is inappropriate. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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