run_stage

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: config_override is merged over the persistent baseline for this call only, is not saved, and repeated calls avoid mutating shared config state. This gives an agent useful expectations about side effects and persistence.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the config_override guidance is organized clearly. The explanation is slightly wordy but every sentence adds relevant operational detail, so it remains efficient without being bloated.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the optional config_override behavior and its use case, but it omits semantics for the required stage_id and input parameters, and does not mention prerequisites like the graph needing to be loaded. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the parameter gaps leave the definition incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It richly explains config_override, including merge semantics and non-persistence, but stage_id and input receive no semantic explanation beyond their names. With two of three parameters unexplained, the description only partially compensates for the missing schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run one stage from the loaded graph.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and scope, and distinguishes it from siblings like run_pipeline (whole pipeline) and list_stages/get_stage_config/set_stage_config (inspection/config tools).

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 gives strong, explicit usage guidance for config_override: when to use it, how to compare configs, and that no reset is needed afterward. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over run_pipeline or other siblings, so it stops short of full alternative-based guidance.

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