COA Run (DML)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description reinforces this with 'DESTRUCTIVE: modifies warehouse data.' It adds value by detailing the need for confirmed, timeout, preflight warnings for V2 projects, and return structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise with a clear one-line summary followed by key behavioral notes. It uses a clean structure but could be more streamlined; no wasted sentences.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, annotations, and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, behavioral traits, and return format. It references coa_create for additional details, which is acceptable.

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?

All 5 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds some context (e.g., confirmed must be true, include example, projectPath mentions data.yml), but much of this is already in the schema. 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 clearly states the tool runs DML (INSERT/MERGE) to populate selected nodes. It uses a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like coa_create or coa_dry_run_run, though it mentions shared pre-flight checks.

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 mentions the requirement for confirmed=true and a 30-minute timeout. It references coa_create for pre-flight checks, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like coa_dry_run_run.

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