execute_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses dispatch semantics (object-type buttons vs. server actions), the refusal behavior for state-hidden buttons, and the return shapes (Odoo action result, {success: true}, or {error}). An agent knows the failure mode and the response form before invoking.

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?

Dense but efficient: every clause adds information about naming, dispatch, refusal, or return values. The leading tip is useful but front-loads a recommendation to other tools before stating what this tool does, which slightly dilutes the opening.

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?

For a 3-required-param mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers naming, dispatch, refusal, and return values. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or how the action result should be interpreted, but is otherwise self-sufficient.

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 compensate, and it does so thoroughly for the 'action' parameter, explaining it is a method name or label with concrete examples. model and record_id are left self-evident rather than explicitly defined, which is a minor gap given the zero schema coverage.

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: 'Execute a button or server action on a record.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like update, create, and archive, and even names the two execution paths (view buttons calling the method directly vs. server actions via ir.actions.server.run).

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?

Provides real routing guidance: check find_skill/list_workflows before multi-step work, and consult get_model_actions to obtain valid action names. It also states when the tool will not work (a button hidden in the record's current state is refused), but it does not explicitly contrast when to prefer this over update or other mutating siblings.

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