paperclip_run_routine

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by detailing error codes (401, 404, 409) and return object fields (id, routineId, status, startedAt). Annotations already indicate non-destructive and non-open-world, so the description augments with precise runtime behavior.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, args, returns, examples, error handling. Information is front-loaded and each sentence adds value 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?

Given only two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers behavior, error scenarios, return structure, and examples. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description restates these and adds an example for routineId, but does not provide significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 triggers a routine run immediately, bypassing its schedule. It uses specific verbs ('trigger', 'run') and distinguishes from sibling tools like paperclip_list_routine_runs for checking past runs.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' sections guide the agent, naming the alternative tool (paperclip_list_routine_runs). Error handling also advises on verification steps, providing clear context for appropriate usage.

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