run_model

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

Annotations only indicate readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details such as local file upload-and-replace semantics, bare paths not being uploaded, the task continuing after the wait limit, and the recovery mechanism via get_prediction.

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 enumerative, front-loaded sentences cover the core purpose, parameters, file-upload nuance, output type, and timeout recovery. Nothing is redundant; every sentence carries operational or informational weight.

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 3-parameter model-steering tool with no output schema and nested inputs, the description covers the critical inputs, file upload caveat, output expectation, asynchronous wait timeout, and recovery path. It leaves no crucial behavioral gap for selecting and invoking the 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 coverage is already 100%, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining local file path handling (@./path), the upload-replacement behavior, how return URLs are produced, and the wait-limit continuation behavior. This directly supplements the input and wait_seconds parameter descriptions.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: "Run any WaveSpeed model," immediately distinguishing this from sibling list_models and get_model_schema. It also references returning output URLs and the recovery path via get_prediction, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 gives clear usage context: input keys come from get_model_schema, local files need a @./path prefix, and wait-limit timeouts should be recovered with get_prediction. It doesn't state explicit 'when not to use this tool' exclusions, but the references to sibling tools provide enough guidance for orchestration.

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