Run an armed project Agent

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-readOnly. The description adds valuable context: server-side enforcement of Limits, project access, account fuse, and online Engine requirement. It does not contradict annotations and enhances understanding of behavioral constraints.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action; the second adds critical behavioral context. Efficiently front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 explains the action and server-side enforcement but omits what the tool returns (e.g., a run object ID). With no output schema, the agent lacks guidance on how to use the result. Given the complexity (5 required params, side effects), this is a notable gap.

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 baseline is 3. The main description does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. It implies prerequisites but does not enhance semantic understanding of fields like task, model, or idempotency_key.

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 resource ('project-linked Agent'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_agent or list_project_agents by stating the agent must be 'already test-ran and armed'.

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 description explicitly states a precondition: the agent must have been test-ran and armed. This guides usage context, but it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., if the agent isn't armed) or suggest alternatives like test-run tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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