run

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds relevant behavioral context with 'THIS CHANGES REAL DATA' and the confirm=true requirement. It goes beyond the schema by explaining the cron-like due-interval behavior, though it does not detail the side effects or scope of the changes.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with the core action, immediately followed by a clear safety warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the distinction from siblings and confirm requirement are stated 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?

The description covers purpose, safety, sibling routing, and the confirmation requirement well. However, with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the missing semantics of start, end, and environment leave gaps for an agent attempting to construct a correct call.

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%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only adds meaning to confirm; start, end, and environment remain effectively undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their formats, meanings, and optionality.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Execute scheduled/due model runs for an environment.' It also differentiates from plan/apply_plan by clarifying it runs already-promoted models, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 states when to use this tool versus alternatives: it handles due intervals like a cron trigger, not previewing or promoting structural changes. It also names the sibling alternatives and sets a firm requirement to pass confirm=true.

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