valta_run_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states return of execution ID and initial status, hinting at asynchronous behavior but not explicitly. It does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or error conditions, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 efficiently convey the core action and return value. No filler or redundant information. Front-loaded with key action.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers return values (execution ID and status). However, it omits details on error handling, timeout, or how to retrieve detailed results. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%, with each parameter having a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'Trigger an agent to run a task.' No extra syntax or format guidance provided, so baseline of 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 'Trigger' and clearly identifies the resource 'agent' and action 'run a task'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning return of execution ID and initial status, which contrasts with retrieval tools like valta_get_agent_run.

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 implies usage for starting an agent task but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the sibling tools include retrieval and management functions, the usage is somewhat clear but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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