Run assessment from local file

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: credit consumption, required permissions (projects:write, assessments:write), asynchronous return via an MCP Task handle, and file system access context ('Reads filePath with your OS user permissions'). No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: four sentences front-loading the main action, followed by key constraints and return type. Every sentence adds necessary information without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (multi-step process, 4 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the workflow and immediate return (Task handle). It could be improved by hinting at the extraction duration or how to interact with the returned task (e.g., via air_wait_for_assessment), but it is largely complete.

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?

With 75% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that filePath is read with the agent's OS user permissions, going beyond the schema's description of 'Absolute or relative path'. Other parameters are adequately described in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's actions: upload a local file, wait for extraction, start assessment on the new artifact. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the process is distinguishable from siblings like air_start_assessment (which starts on an existing artifact) and air_run_full_assessment_pipeline (which handles the entire pipeline differently).

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 provides prerequisites (credit consumption, required permissions) and mentions that it returns an MCP Task handle immediately. However, it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool over alternatives, such as air_run_full_assessment_pipeline or air_start_assessment, which are available as siblings.

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