memory_routine_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the return shape ({success,run,actionsCreated}), error behavior ('missing routines return an error'), non-idempotency ('each call creates a fresh run and audit entry'), and crucially that it does not execute the work. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loads the core action and mechanism, then moves to return/error behavior and the alternative tool. Four dense sentences with no filler, though the phrase 'requires edges between dependent steps' is slightly awkward and the final routing sentence could be its own clearly marked line.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return fields, the error case, and the side effects (actions created, audit entry). For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the terse schema text: 'project supplies context for created actions' and 'initiatedBy records the initiator' explain downstream effects the schema labels ('Project context', 'Agent starting the run') do not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a new run of an existing routineId') and immediately clarifies the mechanism: it creates an action per stored workflow step with dependency edges. This clearly distinguishes it from memory_action_create, which it explicitly names.

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?

Provides a clear routing rule at the end: 'Use memory_action_create for a single work item,' which tells the agent when this tool is not the right choice. It also implies the positive case (multi-step routine runs), but doesn't spell out prerequisites like needing a pre-existing routineId validated elsewhere.

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