supportpages_update_run

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is partially covered. The description genuinely adds context beyond them: the compact acknowledgement + editor link return, the mandatory editor_url display even on failure, the scope limit (cannot mark delivered/published), and the stop-the-writer precondition.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the sibling alternative; no filler. Slightly dense but every sentence carries a distinct rule.

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, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still adds useful behavioral rules (editor_url display, scope limit, precondition). However, with 0% param coverage and 6 parameters, half the calling surface remains unexplained, leaving real gaps for a state-reporting mutation 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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It implies the meaning of the 'event' enum values, but stopped, workspace, host_task_id, and execution_mode are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (report host task events: start, failure, interruption, cancellation) and explicitly names the sibling supportpages_status as the alternative for full run details. An agent can distinguish it from supportpages_status and supportpages_cancel_run without opening a schema.

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?

Provides explicit routing guidance ('use supportpages_status for full run details when needed') and a precondition ('Stop the writer before reporting a terminal event'), plus a display rule for editor_url. It stops short of clarifying which event value to use in which situation, but the context is clear.

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