Run an Ops Operation (admin)

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

The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond that: the operation is asynchronous, returns a 202 with an operation id, and requires the FUTPICKS_OPS_TOKEN. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and async behavior first, then auth, then kind-to-parameter mapping. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool with no output schema, it adequately explains the response shape (202 + operation id), how to follow up (poll flab_ops_status), the security prerequisite, and the kind-specific parameter usage. An agent has enough to call this tool correctly across all five operation kinds.

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 already documents all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping each operation kind to its relevant parameters (e.g., settlement-runs use lastDays 1–30, calibration-runs use windowDays 7–365, intelligence-refreshes use matchId), which is exactly the cross-parameter knowledge an agent needs.

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 and resource ('Submit a pipeline operation') and immediately clarifies the asynchronous contract: returns 202 with an operation id. It also names flab_ops_status as the polling sibling, which distinguishes this tool from the related status tool.

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 clearly states when to use this tool—to submit pipeline operations—and tells the agent to poll via flab_ops_status afterward, which is explicit routing guidance. It also notes the admin-only token requirement, but does not enumerate when not to use it or compare it with flab_backtest_run.

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