run_script_function

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the return format ('Formatted string with execution result or error') and dev_mode behavior, but it does not mention that executing arbitrary script functions can have side effects, require authorization, or affect external data.

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 compact and front-loaded with a clear one-line purpose, followed by a structured Args and Returns list. It loses a point for including 'service' as an arg even though it is not part of the input schema, which adds minor noise.

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?

All parameters and the return format are covered, but there is no guidance on side effects, required permissions, or when not to use this tool. Given that running arbitrary script code can be a mutating operation with no annotations, the description is not fully complete for safe tool selection.

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 compensates by explaining every schema parameter in plain language. It clarifies dev_mode as 'run latest code vs deployed version,' marks parameters as optional, and identifies script_id as the project ID. The extra 'service' arg is marked injected, which reduces potential confusion.

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 opens with 'Executes a function in a deployed script,' which names a specific verb and resource. It is clearly distinct from script management siblings such as create_script_project, update_script_content, and manage_deployment, since none of those invoke an arbitrary function.

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 implies the tool is for running an Apps Script function, especially through the dev_mode note about latest vs deployed version. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over script-related alternatives or mention any exclusions.

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