live_run_multiple_steps

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

The description discloses that steps execute live, that execution 'stops at the first failing step', and that results contain one entry per attempted step. It also notes the side panel 'tab stays claimed' during the run. Since no annotations are provided, it appropriately carries the transparency burden, though it could explicitly mention potential side effects on application state.

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 lengthy but dense, front-loading the core action and then layering details on behavior, guidance, and preconditions. It is well-structured and avoids redundant filler, earning a high score despite its 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?

The description references related tools (get_flow, get_page_object, create_util), explains the distinction from 'raw' steps and util calls, and clarifies scoping rules. It provides enough context for an agent to understand when and how to use the tool, though it does not define an output schema for the 'results' field.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for the 'steps' items, 'project', and 'session' parameters (e.g., defaults for 'project' and purpose for 'session'). The tool description adds behavioral context about variable sharing and step sequencing but does not add new parameter-specific definitions, so it provides limited supplemental meaning beyond 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 'runs a whole ordered sequence of plain steps' live against the side panel's target tab, distinguishing it from single-step tools like live_run_step. It also defines the scope (plain steps only, excluding Conditional/Repeat/Iterate) and the intent of sharing variable context.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer this over several live_run_step calls back to back when the sequence is already decided' and warns that it 'Requires the side panel open and connected'. This gives clear when-to-use and precondition guidance, directly addressing alternatives.

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