Run an armed project Agent

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

The description discloses important behavioral context: immutable saved Limits, project access, account fuse, and online Engine requirement are enforced server-side. This goes beyond the annotations (which only indicate side effects and idempotency) by warning that limits cannot be changed and that the engine must be online.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and key constraints. No filler; every clause adds value, from 'already test-ran and armed' to 'enforced server-side.'

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 description covers purpose, prerequisites, and server-side enforcement, which is sufficient for selecting the tool. It doesn't explain return values or troubleshooting, but there is no output schema and the annotations provide idempotency context, making it adequately complete for a queue/execution tool.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with 100% description coverage (task, model, agent_id, project_id, idempotency_key each have descriptions). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Queue real execution') and clearly identifies the resource ('project-linked Agent') that has been 'test-ran and armed.' This distinguishes it from siblings like build_from_conversation or refine_project, which focus on creating or refining rather than executing.

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 prerequisite that the Agent must be 'already test-ran and armed,' indicating this tool is for real execution after preparation. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context implies using build tools first; this is clear but not as explicit as naming alternatives.

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