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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the run uses the seat's recorded model, that a model swap is surfaced as model_substitution, and that the run's tool narrowing and agent record are preserved. It still omits permission/auth requirements and whether execution is asynchronous, but the behavioral disclosure is well above baseline.

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?

Three short lines with the action and target front-loaded and no filler. The middle sentence packs some jargon ('model_substitution') but each clause adds substantive behavior, so only minor tightening is possible.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the two non-obvious behaviors (model substitution reporting, tool-narrowing persistence) for a no-annotation mutation-style tool. Missing only auth/async semantics, which keeps it short of a 5.

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%, so agent, prompt, run_id, and cursor_agent_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond noting the run must already exist, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Enqueue a follow-up prompt on an existing TeamShared Cloud Agent.' The word 'follow-up' plus 'existing' cleanly separates it from agent_run_start, and it names that sibling directly, so an agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

The prerequisite (an already-existing cloud agent run) is implied by 'existing' and the analogy to agent_run_start, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or clear alternative selection between this and agent_run_start. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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