Run Script Function

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

The description discloses only the basic action. It does not explain that running a function may execute arbitrary code with side effects, act as the user (based on user_google_email), or affect user data. Annotations already signal destructive and not read-only, but the description fails to add useful context beyond that.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the primary action, though this conciseness comes at the cost of missing important behavioral and usage context.

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's complexity (running arbitrary script functions, potential side effects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't explain what happens after execution, how errors are returned, or the implications of running code as the user. This is insufficient for an agent to safely and correctly use the tool.

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 fully describes all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter relationships, like how dev_mode changes execution target or how parameters are passed. It simply restates the action without enriching schema semantics.

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 a clear verb 'executes' and resource 'function in a deployed script', but the qualifier 'deployed' is inaccurate because the tool can also run latest code via dev_mode (as noted in the schema). This partial misstatement obscures the full scope, so it's not a fully reliable purpose statement.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a deployment or auth, and no reference to sibling tools that manage script projects or deployments.

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