cw_run_command

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the WM_COMMAND dispatch mechanism, the version-independence limit, and a meaningful return signal (whether the window list changed) that lets the caller detect a registered-but-unhandled no-op. It does not mention modal/dialog blocking, side effects of destructive ids, or the confirm gate, which the schema covers but the prose does not reinforce.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism, then the id source, then the return-value caveat. Nothing is repeated and every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover empirically.

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 correctly takes on the return-value explanation (window-list-changed as a success signal), which is the most important unknown for this tool. It stops short of describing what happens with destructive commands or whether the call blocks, leaving a small gap for a mutation tool with zero annotations.

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 coverage is 100% and the cmdId/confirm/keepOverlays descriptions already explain the enum-like acknowledge strings and the modal-closing flag in detail. The description adds only 'numeric id' and the version-independence framing, which is marginal beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a SONAR menu command by numeric id via WM_COMMAND) and names cw_list_commands as the id source, which separates it from the listing tools. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like cw_run_command_classified or cw_insert_commands, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 a clear precondition (obtain ids from cw_list_commands) and a clear context of use (version-independent, works only where the menu exposes the command). It offers no explicit 'use X instead when...' guidance against the other command-execution siblings, so the selection rule is incomplete.

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