inforcer_assessments_run

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by adding critical behavioral context: the run is not destructive, but kicks off real work visible to operators. This is genuinely useful disclosure that complements the readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false annotations, and it does not contradict them.

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 front-loads the most important information (HIGH-IMPACT) before the details. The tenant identifier sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it keeps the description self-contained. Overall, each sentence serves a purpose without excessive length.

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 high-impact action tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational context: impact level, visibility to operators, tenant resolution, and user confirmation. It does not describe return values or post-run status checking, but this is a minor gap given the action-oriented nature and the presence of sibling status tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats the tenant identifier semantics verbatim rather than adding new meaning, and adds no additional context for assessment_id beyond what the schema already provides. This is an adequate but not value-adding redundancy.

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 uses a specific verb ('Triggers an assessment run') with a clear resource ('assessment run for a tenant'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling inforcer_assessments_list by indicating it initiates work rather than listing. The HIGH-IMPACT warning and tenant scope make the purpose immediately clear.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to confirm with the user before invoking, which is essential usage guidance for a high-impact action. It also clarifies the tenant input forms and resolution behavior. It does not explicitly contrast against alternatives such as inforcer_reports_run, but the warning and 'confirm with user' guidance provide strong contextual direction.

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