run_action

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, which indicate destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent. It explains specific behaviors: a returned dict with 'res_model' indicates a wizard to follow, and transitions are one-way (calling twice raises error). This provides valuable context that annotations alone do not cover, fully justifying the tool's behavior.

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 moderately concise but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the main purpose, but the subsequent sentences about behavior become complex and may require rereading. Some information, like the one-way transition detail, is important but could be structured more clearly.

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 has 3 required parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description provides sufficient behavioral detail (wizard handling, transition idempotency). It lacks explicit mention of what the output contains, but since an output schema exists, that burden is partially lifted. The description is adequate for an agent to understand key caveats.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explicitly describe each parameter. However, the description mentions the 'method' parameter in context ('the level follows method') and implies that 'record_ids' and 'model' are inputs. Although not detailed individually, the description adds enough context about how parameters relate to the tool's behavior, compensating for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states that the tool runs a workflow method and reports the state it left behind, which gives a general idea. However, it does not specify what kind of workflow or method (e.g., from which framework or platform), and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like 'cancel_record' or 'write_record' which also deal with state changes.

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 some guidance on when the tool is appropriate (e.g., confirming/posting as state changes) and when it is destructive (cancelling/unlinking, raised ceiling). It also mentions a one-way transition behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings such as 'write_record' or 'cancel_record', nor does it list alternatives.

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