execute_extendscript

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden and it does add real behavior: return semantics (last expression value, objects JSON-encoded), available globals (`app`, `qe`, helper functions), and DOM time units. It never warns that arbitrary script runs with full application privileges and can mutate or destroy the project, and says nothing about error propagation or execution limits.

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 dense sentences, purpose front-loaded, then return contract, then execution environment. No restatement of the tool name or filler.

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 supplies the return-value contract, which is the main thing an agent would otherwise lack. For an arbitrary-code tool with zero annotation coverage, the remaining gap is safety and failure behavior (what happens on script error, whether `save_project` is needed afterwards).

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the most important parameter: what the `script` body is evaluated as, what it returns, and which globals are in scope. `timeoutSeconds` is left undocumented in both schema and description, though its 1–3600 bounds make it largely self-explanatory.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Run raw ExtendScript in Premiere Pro") and immediately positions itself as the escape hatch for anything the specialized sibling tools cannot do. An agent can distinguish this from the ~140 narrow siblings without inspecting any schema.

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?

"for anything the other tools don't cover" is explicit routing guidance that sets the escape-hatch condition and implicitly tells the agent to prefer dedicated tools first. It lacks a concrete fallback example or a note that the dedicated tools are preferred for destructive/structural edits, so it isn't a full when/when-not pair.

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