Run a pipeline

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, open-world behavior, but the description adds concrete side-effect context: tasks may write files or contact external services, and status should be inspected for failures. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but with annotations carrying the broad safety profile, this is a minor gap.

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?

Four sentences deliver action, workflow prerequisite, return behavior, side effects, and alternatives with zero filler. The key execution semantics are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes.

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 run tool with side effects, the description covers preconditions, confirmation flow, return inspection, and sibling routing. The main gap is the under-specified config object, which is more a parameter semantics issue; overall, an agent has enough context to call this tool safely and correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does by identifying config as a pipeline config and naming config.path as the execution target. However, it does not document the expected type, format, or any other config fields, leaving an open object with minimal guidance.

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 executes a pipeline config and even cites the specific config.path that drives execution. It differentiates from siblings by naming save_pipeline (store without executing) and run_pipeline_batch (multiple sources), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit guidance for event reductions: call preview_pipeline first, report events and kept seconds, and get user confirmation. It also names alternatives and the conditions for choosing them, making when-to-use and when-not-to-use unambiguous.

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