harness_execute

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

Annotations claim destructiveHint=false, but the description lists potentially destructive actions like 'kill/restore FME feature flags' and 'interrupt pipelines', creating inconsistency. The description does add value by noting URL auto-extraction and parameter behavior, but the contradiction undermines trust.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose, but the list of examples could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). Overall efficient and to the point.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: resource types, actions, URL usage, inputs, input sets, body, params, and references to other tools for supplementary info. It is complete for a complex exec 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: e.g., URLs auto-identify resources, inputs accept key-value pairs or YAML, and it suggests using harness_describe for action-specific parameters. This extra context helps the agent parameterize correctly.

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 'Execute an action on a Harness resource' and lists specific actions like run, retry, interrupt, etc., distinguishing it from siblings like harness_create, harness_delete, which handle CRUD operations.

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 gives explicit context for using the tool (e.g., to trigger actions, pass a URL for auto-extraction). It references harness_get and harness_list for complementary setup, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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