new_recursive_execution_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Creating the reference makes no server, provider, or storage call,' which is critical for an agent to understand that this is a local, side-effect-free operation despite the 'Create' verb. It also discloses the scoping behavior ('same tenant/company/user scope').

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, and side-effect transparency. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the required call sequence (pass to recursive_agent_execute), the cancellation use case, scope constraints, and the absence of side effects. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Create a public UUID'), a specific resource ('for a recursive run'), and a temporal constraint ('before starting it'). This clearly differentiates it from related siblings like get_recursive_agent_execution_status and cancel_recursive_agent_execution by defining its role as a precursor step.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool ('before starting' a recursive run) and how to use its return value ('Pass this value to recursive_agent_execute'). It also explains the intended downstream purpose (cancellation by another client). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a fully explicit when/when-not specification.

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