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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, it discloses the auth scope required, rate/quota constraints, per-feed concurrency, the return value (runId), and the follow-up polling pattern. The line "An in-flight run never affects the live delivered feed" importantly scopes how far the destructive hint reaches, which the annotations alone cannot convey.

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 short sentences ordered by importance: what it does, what it requires, what it returns, what to do next. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation, preconditions, return value, and the exact next call. There is nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly that 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 100% and the single feedId parameter is already documented as coming from list_feeds, so the schema does all the work here. The description adds no format, example, or constraint on feedId, which is the expected baseline 3 when one fully-described parameter exists.

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?

It gives a specific verb and resource ("Start a feed run") and then enumerates the pipeline it performs: fetch source, apply rules, audit output, compile channel files. That detail distinguishes it from the read-only siblings such as get_run_status and preview_rule without opening any schema.

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 states the prerequisites (write-scoped connection, workspace SKU limit, manual-run cap, one run at a time per feed) and routes the agent onward to get_run_status for completion polling. It never explains a when-not case or names a competing tool to use instead, but no sibling also triggers runs, so the relevant guidance is largely present.

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