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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important state restrictions, but does not describe what 'advance' actually changes in the run state, any side effects, or idempotency expectations.

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 description is two tight sentences: the first states the action and timing, the second lists illegal conditions. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The core preconditions and invalid states are stated, and an output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying how this differs from process_run_complete and what state the run is left in after advancing.

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 the schema fully documents run_id, finished_step, and agent. The description mostly reinforces the schema's finished_step/current_step constraint without adding new parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Advance') with a specific resource ('Process run') and states the timing ('after the current step is finished'). It clearly conveys step-wise progress rather than creation or completion, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool.

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 gives a clear trigger condition for use (after a current step finishes) and explicit negative conditions ('Illegal when the run is completed/cancelled, finished_step is not the current step, or the process is unknown'). It does not name alternatives like process_run_complete, but the when/not-when guidance is strong.

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