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

Even with destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds substantial context beyond annotations: it is the step that actually writes to the CRM, may spend provider credits, staged plans write once at the end, the call returns immediately with a firing_id rather than blocking, and inactive or excluded plans are refused with a named reason.

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 key fact — that this tool acts and spends credits — is front-loaded in capitals before sequencing and follow-up details. The paragraph is dense and each clause carries information, though the mid-sentence uppercase emphasis and some qualification clauses are slightly heavier than necessary.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the async return shape (firing_id), the follow-up tools needed to observe outcomes, the refusal cases, and the reversal route via preview_plan_reversal. Nothing essential to invoking or reasoning about the call is missing.

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 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema (plan_id points at list_plans, connection_id points at list_crm_connections). The prose carries no additional syntax or format meaning beyond those field descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Run a plan now: every step in order') and grounds it in a concrete UI analogue ('as the Plans page's Run button does'), so an agent can immediately separate it from create_plan, dispatch_run, and the various create_*_run siblings.

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?

It clearly says when to use this tool (to fire an existing plan immediately) and chains the follow-up calls (get_plan for step outcomes, get_run for funnels), plus the reversal path. It never names a competing sibling such as dispatch_run to explain why you would fire a plan here rather than dispatch an individual run, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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