run_agent_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at budget consumption ('within budget') but never states that this tool creates assets, spends credits, runs long, is irreversible, or that dry_run exists as a safe preview — all critical for an orchestration tool with side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical example that earns its place by making an abstract concept concrete. No filler or redundancy.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, four-parameter orchestration tool with 0% schema coverage, this is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what side effects to expect, how budget is sourced or enforced, what dry_run does, or what the tool 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%, so the description must compensate and does not. Only 'brief' gains meaning (via the example) and 'budget' is mentioned without a corresponding parameter; dry_run, project, and parent_asset_id are entirely unexplained anywhere.

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?

Specific verb ('Execute') plus resource ('high-level natural language agent brief') with an explicit end-to-end scope, and the embedded example ('Make 20 fantasy potions... then 3D the 5 best') concretely demonstrates what a brief is. The phrase 'high-level ... end to end' implicitly separates it from single-step siblings like run_verb and run_recipe.

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 example implies the intended usage context (multi-step creative pipelines), but the description never states when to choose this over run_verb, run_recipe, or a hand-composed sequence of calls, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage must be inferred from the example alone.

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