run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one important behavior: destroying commands require {"confirm": true}. It does not describe what happens if confirm is omitted, whether the command may fail silently, or how errors are returned.

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 concise, front-loads the core action, and uses a simple Args structure. Every sentence adds meaningful information and there is no 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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the core call contract is present. It is slightly incomplete because it does not explain where to find command IDs or how to handle authorization failures, which matter for a generic command dispatcher without 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the parameter types. It does: command_id is the exact command string from the catalog, and params is an optional dictionary with a confirm key to authorize destructive commands. Both parameters receive useful documentation.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Dispatch any catalogued Dorico command ID with optional parameters.' It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as search_commands.

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 phrase 'any catalogued Dorico command ID' implies this is a generic dispatcher for commands that already exist in the catalog, and the confirm note indicates when authorization may be needed. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over search_commands or the other Dorico-specific tools, nor does it give explicit exclusions.

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