execute_background_script

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is destructive (destructiveHint: true) and not read-only. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., potential system impact, permissions required). With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description offers minimal extra value.

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 brief and to the point, with a single sentence and a clarifying tag '[Scripting]'. It is efficient but could be more structured to include key usage notes; however, it earns its place without verbosity.

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 tool that executes arbitrary server-side JavaScript, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain that this is a powerful operation with potential system-wide effects, nor does it mention the need for proper permissions or caution. While schema and annotations help, the description should provide more context for safe and effective use.

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 100% for the two parameters (script and scope), so the schema already documents their purpose. The description does not add any new meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 clearly states that the tool executes a background script on the instance using server-side JavaScript. The verb 'Execute' and resource 'background script' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools which focus on operations like creation, retrieval, or deletion of records.

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 (e.g., running a subflow or scheduled job). It does not mention prerequisites, security considerations, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without context to decide appropriateness.

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