Run an Orca automation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word "now"; it says nothing about what the run triggers, whether it is fire-and-forget or blocking, whether it returns a run identifier, or that repeated calls start duplicate runs.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is not padded, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent action with no output schema, yet the description never explains the effect of a run, whether execution is asynchronous, or what the caller receives. For a mutation tool whose result the agent must act on afterward, one sentence is not sufficient.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'id' including its source (orca_automation_list) and format constraints. The description contributes nothing beyond that, which is the baseline expectation at full coverage.

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 sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Run one Orca automation") and the word "now" signals immediate execution rather than scheduling. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling orca_automation_list, though it never names that sibling or any other alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke this versus listing automations, checking status, or launching an agent. The only pointer to a sibling ("from orca_automation_list") lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gains no selection criteria from the prose.

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