run_sweep

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive (destructiveHint=false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds the async behavior and immediate job_id return. However, it does not disclose that each call creates a new job, nor the lifecycle of the job or what happens if the config_id is invalid.

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?

Single sentence, 13 words, front-loads the core purpose and outcome. No redundant information.

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 a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is mostly complete. It lacks specification of the return format (e.g., job_id as string) and explicit linkage to check_job for monitoring, but still informative enough for an agent.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'previously configured' aligning with config_id but doesn't elaborate on max_parallel beyond the schema's default note.

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?

Description clearly states the tool executes a previously configured parameter sweep asynchronously and returns a job_id. The verb 'execute' and resource 'previously configured sweep' are specific. Differentiates from 'configure_sweep' (configuration) and 'run_montecarlo' (different simulation type).

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 that a sweep must be configured first (using configure_sweep) and that the execution is asynchronous, suggesting the user should later poll with check_job. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like run_simulation for non-sweep runs.

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