Run an action

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing consent behavior ('the first run asks them once, on a card'), where results land ('the activity log'), and a side effect ('a webhook or command with show set puts its answer on the canvas'). These are non-obvious traits that the openWorldHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint flags cannot convey, and nothing contradicts those annotations.

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-loads the core action, then layers kinds, the exclusion, and side effects in three tight sentences with no filler. Dense but every clause carries distinct information; slightly long but justified by the behavior it discloses.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining where results go (activity log, canvas). Combined with the consent note and kind exclusion, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly without further inference.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'id' including its source ('from the actions listed in the prompt or find_records'). The description's 'by id' adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Run one of the person's actions now, by id') and enumerates the concrete kinds it covers (webhook, command, arrangement), so the agent understands exactly what domain this operates on. It does not name any sibling tool to differentiate against, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 context ('now', by id) and an explicit exclusion: 'Actions of kind message are for the person to press, not for you.' This when-not rule prevents a likely misfire. It doesn't reference alternatives among the sibling tools, but the routing rule for the excluded kind is clear.

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