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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), it discloses the scheduling semantics (priority lane, level ordering normal < high < critical, then oldest), the lane capacity cap of a third of runner slots preventing starvation, re-invocation changing level, and explicit auth requirements ('repo' scope, write access, site admin for high/critical). This is exactly the operational context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layers ordering, capacity, repeat-call, state, and auth constraints in dense but non-redundant sentences. Every sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions (queued only), side effects (claim ordering, lane capacity), idempotency behavior, and permission requirements. Nothing material to calling it correctly 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 coverage is only 50% (owner and repo undocumented), but the description compensates for the key parameter by explaining the level ordering and that high/critical require site admin, and echoing run-id targeting via 'queued run'. owner/repo remain undescribed but are self-evident conventions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: moving a QUEUED workflow run into a priority lane, with the exact claim ordering (level, then oldest). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like cancel_workflow_run, list_workflow_runs, or get_workflow_run, which operate on runs but do not reorder scheduling.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition (only queued runs) and a when-not condition (a running or finished run is reported, not changed), plus repeat-call semantics. It does not name an alternative sibling tool, but the state constraint and level guidance are sufficient to route an agent correctly.

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