run_business_primitive

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful failure semantics ('Missing scope and unknown refs fail closed') and mentions connector effects through 'governed authority', but it fails to clarify whether this operation can cause external side effects, how `preview_only` changes behavior, or what approval flows may be required.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, and the alias note is relevant for sibling disambiguation. The only issue is that phrases like 'canonical Executable Primitive Runtime' and 'Spring's governed authority' add jargon without much explanatory payoff.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and the potential to trigger connector effects, this description is under-specified. It does not explain how to build a correct request, what `preview_only` means, how approvals are handled, or what a typical execution returns.

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%, and the description compensates very little. It vaguely hints at 'exact Project scope' and 'unknown refs fail closed', which loosely relate to `project_id`, `project_ref`, and the ref parameters, but it never explains `mode`, `inputs`, `request`, `approval_refs`, `connector_account_refs`, `primitive_version`, or `preview_only`.

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 first sentence states the action ('Run') and the resource ('Executable Primitive Runtime') with a scope qualifier, so an agent understands the basic operation. The alias note also clearly connects it to `run_sdk_business_primitive`. However, the heavy use of internal jargon ('canonical Executable Primitive Runtime', 'Spring's governed authority') makes the tool's precise role less accessible.

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 explains that `run_sdk_business_primitive` is a compatibility alias and that both paths execute identically, which is useful when an agent is deciding between those two siblings. It does not, however, provide broader guidance on when to use this tool versus other business-primitive, workflow, or SDK execution tools.

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