Api chat agent runs create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no indication of what a run is, whether it starts an async job, whether it needs an existing session, or what happens on repeat calls (relevant given non-idempotency).

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?

It is a single token with no padding, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness – nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said. There is no sentence for an agent to act on.

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?

This is a create/mutation tool with an opaque free-form body, no output schema, and no annotations describing semantics beyond safety flags. The description supplies none of the context needed – what a chat agent run is, what belongs in the body, or what the call returns – so it is completely inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

There is one parameter ('body') that is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true and 0% schema description coverage. The description provides zero information about the expected body contents, leaving an agent no way to construct the request from the definition.

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 is literally the tool name restated as a string ('api_chat_agent_runs_create'), which is tautological by the rubric's definition. An agent can infer 'create a chat agent run' only from the snake_case name, not from any prose in the description.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_chat_agent_runs_start_questionnaire_prefill_create, ciso_assistant_api_chat_agent_runs_cancel_create, or ciso_assistant_api_chat_sessions_message_create. No prerequisites, no context, no exclusions are stated.

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