Run full assessment pipeline

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is partially covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotated behavior: credit consumption and the MCP Task handle/polling requirement. But it is internally contradictory, saying it 'wait[s] for completion, return[s] report summary' while also 'Returns an MCP Task handle immediately', which muddles whether the agent should expect a result or a handle.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the operational details (credits, task handle, polling) are compactly stated. The only defect is that the first and third sentences contradict each other rather than complementing, which is a content problem more than a verbosity one.

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?

No output schema exists and this is a credit-consuming, asynchronous, multi-parameter operation, so the description should do more work. It sketches the flow well but omits parameter semantics, credit magnitude, and what the 'report summary' contains, leaving the agent under-equipped to call it correctly.

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% with 4 parameters (3 required), so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. Only artifactPids is obliquely implied by 'existing artifacts'; projectPid, name, and waitTimeoutMs are completely unexplained, and the interaction between waitTimeoutMs and the claimed async handle is not addressed.

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 and resource (start/run assessment pipeline) with scope qualifier 'on existing artifacts', which implicitly separates it from the sibling air_run_assessment_from_file. However, it never explicitly names start_assessment, wait_for_assessment, or run_assessment_from_file, so the disambiguation is left to inference.

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?

It gives partial when-to-use context ('on existing artifacts') and a procedural note to poll tasks/get until completed. But it does not say when to prefer this over air_start_assessment + air_wait_for_assessment or air_run_assessment_from_file, which are the obvious alternatives.

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