Runn: create placeholder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals three non-obvious behaviors: auto-naming after the role, the need for a follow-up update to rename, and automatic deletion within 24 hours without a project/assignment. This goes beyond simple CRUD semantics.

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 three sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the main action and places the deletion warning at the end. Every sentence adds value.

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 4-param creation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: required field, auto-naming, follow-up, and deletion risk. It even implies the return value (the id) via the follow-up instruction. Slightly lacking is contextualization for tags and teamId, but the overall picture is solid.

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 only 25% (only costPerHour has a description). The description adds meaning for roleId by explaining auto-naming, but leaves tags and teamId undocumented. It does not compensate sufficiently for the low schema 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 description clearly states the tool's function: 'Create a placeholder (POST /placeholders) for allocating external/contractor work.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the external/contractor context and the auto-naming behavior.

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?

It provides usage context by noting that only roleId is required and that a follow-up with runn_update_person is needed to give the placeholder a real name. It also includes the critical caveat about deletion within 24 hours if unassigned. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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