rws_run_register

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

Annotations already establish that this is a write operation that is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that no program is launched and that producer bindings are immutable. It does not cover concurrency or authorization behavior, so it is not a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by two high-value behavioral constraints. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 complex mutation with a nested record schema, four required parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema. The description does not explain expectedRevision, requestId idempotency, or key record semantics, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation despite useful annotations.

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 low at 25%, and the description does little to compensate for the four required parameters. It mentions 'status' and 'run' conceptually, but does not explain requestId, projectId, expectedRevision, or the structure of the record beyond what the schema itself says.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: recording an actual run and its status. It is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like experiment_save and code_register by focusing on run records, but it does not explicitly name an alternative or sibling to avoid, so it falls short of 5.

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 note that registration never launches a program implicitly tells the agent this is for recording, not executing, a run. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related save/register tools, and no when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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