hebbrix_execute_procedure

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

The description adds 'record its execution,' a behavioral detail not present in the annotations, and notes the tenant-ownership constraint. It does not mention authentication needs, what happens on failure, or whether execution may mutate external state beyond the record, so transparency is only partial.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the key side effect without filler. It loses one point because its brevity leaves important operational detail unstated.

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 tool with three parameters, no schema descriptions, and only minimal annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not clarify what goes into 'parameters' versus 'input_state', whether the procedure must already exist, or what execution entails beyond being recorded. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values but does not close these gaps.

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 needed to explain the free-form 'parameters' and 'input_state' objects, but it does not. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names and procedure_id requirement already visible in the schema.

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 action ('Execute'), a clearly bounded resource ('one tenant-owned procedure'), and a distinctive side effect ('record its execution'). This separates it from procedure-management siblings like hebbrix_get_procedure, hebbrix_create_procedure, and hebbrix_list_procedures.

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?

The intended use is implied: call this when you want to run a tenant-owned procedure. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as viewing a procedure first with hebbrix_get_procedure or choosing an action via hebbrix_choose_action.

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