manager_action

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

The annotations do not include readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses persistent side effects and an authorization precondition. It could be more specific about reversibility and scope, but the essential warning is present.

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?

Two purposeful sentences with the core side-effect trait front-loaded, followed by the required precondition and input content. No filler or redundant repetition.

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?

For a generic action dispatcher with no parameter docs, the description sensibly routes to agent_capabilities and warns about persistent side effects. It lacks concrete examples and explicit exclusions, but an output schema exists so return-value detail is not a major gap.

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 adds that params should contain a complete baseline or confirmed plan and that method/input details come from agent_capabilities, but it does not enumerate valid methods or the params shape.

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 clear action: execute methods that have persistent side effects, which distinguishes it from sibling query/preview tools. The exact set of methods is left vague, but the core purpose is identifiable.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to first read agent_capabilities to understand inputs and authorization boundaries, then pass a complete baseline or confirmed plan. It does not name exclusions or alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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