Run assessment from local file

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that credits are consumed, the two required OAuth scopes, that an MCP Task handle is returned immediately (async, not blocking), and that filePath is read under the caller's OS user permissions. The local-filesystem permission model and credit cost are exactly the kind of operational context an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint alone.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the operation sequence is front-loaded before cost/auth/return details. Every clause carries information an agent needs (credits, scopes, return shape, file access).

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 multi-stage, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key unknowns: it is a composite operation, it is asynchronous, and it returns a task handle. The one gap is that it does not name the sibling (air_wait_for_assessment / air_wait_for_document_extraction) an agent should call to collect the result of the returned handle.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are documented structurally; baseline is 3. The description adds one genuinely new fact about filePath (it is read with the caller's OS permissions), but says nothing about projectPid, contentType, or name beyond what the schema already states.

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 names the exact three-step operation (upload local file, wait for extraction, start assessment) against a specific resource, so an agent knows precisely what happens. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling air_run_full_assessment_pipeline, which sounds like an overlapping convenience wrapper.

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?

Usage is implied by the opening sentence: use this when you have a local file and want an assessment created from it. Prerequisites (projects:write, assessments:write) are stated, but there are no exclusions and no explicit routing away from the manual air_upload_document_init/air_start_assessment flow or toward air_run_full_assessment_pipeline.

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