create_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only lists parameters without describing effects, permissions needed, or what happens on success/failure. The behavioral traits are minimally disclosed beyond the fact that it creates something.

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 sentence plus a bulleted parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each parameter gets a line. No extraneous information, though the list format could be more integrated.

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 9 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what a sequencing run represents, returned data, error conditions, or relationships with other tools. More context is needed for a tool with this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by specifying formats (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD for run_date, HHMM for run_time) and enumerating allowed statuses (In Progress, Uploading, Ready, Resync). However, many parameters (e.g., run_id, machine_id) only get a one-word label, and optional params lack usage 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 states 'Create a new sequencing run,' using a specific verb and resource. Among many sibling create tools, it distinguishes itself clearly by specifying 'sequencing run.' However, it does not elaborate on what constitutes a sequencing run, which could be assumed in context.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_run_status or associate_sample_with_run. The description lacks context for prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases.

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