cst_run_vba_tool

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that execution is immediate and not stored in history, which is useful, but omits critical traits for arbitrary code execution: safety implications, permissions, reversibility, and side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key action and the non-history-storage constraint are both delivered up front.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a raw code execution tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description is too sparse — it lacks usage guidance, safety context, and parameter format details.

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. It identifies the parameter conceptually as 'raw CST VBA,' mapping to vba_code, but adds no syntax, formatting, or example detail beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute raw CST VBA.' It also notes that execution is immediate and not stored in the history tree, which implicitly distinguishes it from history-adding siblings. However, it does not name an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'immediately (not stored in the history tree)' — the agent can infer this is for direct, non-recorded VBA execution. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling alternatives are named.

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