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

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates this is a write operation (creates a run) and adds context about permissions and immediate application. It does not mention idempotency or side effects beyond creation, but the provided information is adequate.

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 and well-structured. Each of the four sentences adds distinct value: purpose, permission, alternatives, and parameter guidance. No fluff or redundant information.

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?

Given the 3 parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, permissions, and parameter hints. It lacks information about the return value or error cases, but those are not critical for this create-style tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates that playbook_id should be a UUID or GUID, but this is already in the schema. The mention of 'isolated context and canvas artifacts' gives some semantic context to the context parameter, but not enough to elevate the score.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a workflow run so this playbook can be applied immediately.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_runs, update_run, and delete_run. It also explicitly notes the absence of a get_run, further clarifying its role.

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 description explicitly instructs when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use list_runs to inspect existing runs (there is no get_run) and update_run to change status.' It also mentions the required permission ('Requires canvas:write or full permission'), providing clear usage context.

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