update_run_status

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

Annotations are not provided, so the description must convey behavior. It explicitly lists the allowed status values (In Progress, Uploading, Ready, Resync), aiding the agent. However, it lacks details about side effects, required permissions, or constraints on status transitions.

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 concise with two sentences and a compact bullet list. It is front-loaded with the primary action, but the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema. Still efficient for its length.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain what the function returns (e.g., success message, updated run object). For a mutation tool with simple parameters, this is a gap but not critical.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by documenting run_id as 'The run identifier' and run_status as 'New status (In Progress, Uploading, Ready, Resync)', adding concrete values beyond the plain type strings.

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 clearly states 'Update the status of a sequencing run', specifying the verb (update) and resource (status of sequencing run). It distinguishes this tool from related sibling tools like create_run, list_runs, etc.

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 (e.g., update_job, submit_job). The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use.

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