part_run_script

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: it documents the pre-populated namespace (doc, OUT_DIR, FreeCAD/App, Part, imports required for Mesh/Sketcher/PartDesign), the return payload (stdout, files, objects), the failure shape ({error} with traceback and stdout), the timeout range and default, and a security caveat that the script runs with user permissions and is not isolated by MCP_FREECAD_ALLOWED_PATHS.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds operational value (namespace, output, errors, timeout, security). It is dense and parenthetical-heavy, but there is no filler; only minor tightening is possible.

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 high-complexity arbitrary-code-execution tool with 3 params at 0% schema coverage, the description supplies invocation environment, output handling, error contract, timeout bounds and the critical sandboxing caveat. An output schema exists, yet the extra return-format detail reinforces rather than pads.

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 for all three parameters: `script` (what is pre-injected, what must be imported), `out_dir` (exposed as OUT_DIR, output files land there), and `timeout_s` (valid 5–900, defaults to MCP_FREECAD_TIMEOUT_S or 120). Nothing is left undocumented.

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 ('Roda um script Python no FreeCAD headless') and immediately frames its niche against the sibling set ('a válvula de escape da API completa', covering what other tools don't: threads, parametric enclosures, game pieces). An agent can tell this apart from doc_inspect/doc_export without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear positive selection criteria — use it for geometry the other tools don't cover, with concrete examples (roscas, gabinetes paramétricos, peças de jogo). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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