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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context: permission requirement, the fact that there is no get_run, and that delete_run removes the run and canvas artifacts. It does not contradict annotations, and adds value by warning about the missing get_run and articulating the permission boundary.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying necessary information: purpose, permission, lookup guidance, and playbook_id format. No fluff, well front-loaded with the main action. Ideal conciseness for a tool with 5 parameters.

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?

Covers permissions, lookup workflow, and distinguishes from delete. The schema handles parameter details (enum, objects), and the description provides the operational context. It doesn't explain return values, but no output schema exists, so that's acceptable. Given the tool's complexity, this is complete enough.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds extra hints: how to obtain run_id via list_runs, and that playbook_id should be UUID or GUID. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions and aids correct parameter usage.

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?

Clearly states it updates a run's name, status, or context, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning list_runs and delete_run as related, but also identifies what this tool does not do (no get_run).

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites (canvas:write or full permission) and workflow context (use list_runs to find run_id, delete_run for removal). It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X', but it gives clear context for when and how to use, and mentions alternatives for related actions.

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