inkbolt_run

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

Adds context beyond annotations: revision checks on edits, durable retry receipts, and that source files/existing outputs are preserved. That retry and revision semantics are genuinely new information. The claim that outputs are preserved sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true, but the command enum plainly mixes read and mutating operations, so this reads as scoping rather than contradiction.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the discovery prerequisite. Little waste; the preservation/retry sentence is the least essential but still informative.

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?

Has an output schema, so return values need no explanation, and delegation to schema_lookup is a sound pattern for a mega-dispatcher. But the description does not convey that individual commands vary widely in destructiveness or prerequisite state, which an agent selecting among 100+ commands would benefit from knowing.

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 schema's 'arguments' object is only partially described (33% coverage), and the description compensates by clarifying that arguments come from schema.lookup and must omit command, which mirrors the schema's own note. For a free-form pass-through object keyed to 100+ enumerated commands, this is adequate but no more.

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+resource (run engine commands) through 'the same validated executor', and names inkbolt_schema_lookup as the discovery route, which separates it from the many inkbolt_* per-operation siblings. It's a catch-all dispatcher so the description can't enumerate what it covers, but the role is 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?

Tells the agent to discover command names and arguments via inkbolt_schema_lookup, which is useful routing guidance. However, it never explains when to use inkbolt_run versus the many specific siblings (inkbolt_document_edit, inkbolt_session_apply, inkbolt_asset_import, etc.) that appear to wrap individual commands, leaving the main selection decision to inference.

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