create_agent_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It implies the agent must be active but does not explain behavior on inactive agents, side effects, idempotency, or authentication requirements. The description is mostly a parameter list.

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 a front-loaded main action. The parameter list is clear, though the 'Args:' section is somewhat redundant with the input schema. Slightly exceeding minimal viable 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?

An output schema exists but is not described, leaving the return value unclear. The description does not mention preconditions (e.g., agent must be active) or link to related sibling tools. Adequate but has gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds context: mode options (agent/plan), warning that extra_json cannot overwrite certain fields, and clarifies prompt_text as 'follow-up instruction'. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the action ('Send a follow-up prompt to an active agent') and identifies the resource (agent run) with a specific HTTP endpoint. It differentiates from siblings like cancel_agent_run and list_agent_runs.

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., create_agent for new conversations, stream_agent_run for streaming). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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