run_notebook_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a job is submitted, but does not disclose whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, whether a job ID is returned, what side effects occur, or what happens if the job fails or is submitted twice.

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 a single, focused sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource, but it could use the available space to add more useful guidance without becoming verbose.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, a run-submission tool needs to explain what the caller receives after submission and how to track the job, e.g., via get_run_status. The description omits these important details, leaving the agent uncertain about return values and follow-up steps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'optional parameters and configuration' generically. It does not explain the meaning of notebook, workspace, parameters, or configuration fields, nor how they interact with the current workspace context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('a notebook job run'), making the core action clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_run_status and cancel_notebook_job because it initiates a run rather than inspecting or canceling one, though it does not explicitly call out that contrast.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_run_status or cancel_notebook_job. It also does not mention any prerequisites like setting a workspace or notebook context before submitting a run.

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