createAtcRun

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context by warning about the 500 error for a variant name. It could go further into side effects or what starting the run entails, but with annotations present the bar is lower and this description clears it.

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?

Three sentences with the essential caveat front-loaded and no real filler. The 'whatever your are still calling it' wording is slightly informal and 'first parameter' could be tighter, but the structure is clear and efficient.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers the key workflow: use atcCheckVariant to get the worklist id, call this tool, or switch to the atcCheck sequence. It leaves mainUrl and maxResults semantics to the schema and does not fully describe the result of launching the run, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is already adequate. The description reinforces the critical variant semantics, tells the agent to get the id from atcCheckVariant, and rejects the variant-name alternative; it does not need to add much for mainUrl or maxResults given the schema already describes them.

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 states a specific action ('Starts an ATC run' over one object) and differentiates it from nearby siblings it mentions: atcCheckVariant produces the id and atcCheck does the whole sequence. An agent can tell this tool is the single-step launcher versus the alternatives without opening their 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 is explicitly stated that the first parameter must be a worklist id, not a check variant name, and it even names the failure mode: the backend answers 500 for a variant name. It also provides concrete routing rules: get the id from atcCheckVariant, or use atcCheck when the whole sequence is wanted.

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