voltage_run

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint and openWorldHint, and the description complements these by explaining concrete behaviors: immediate return with run_id, polling requirement, dry_run overriding policy, and the specific conditions that terminate a run. It adds value beyond annotations without contradicting 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 efficiently structured: the core action and return contract are front-loaded, followed by parameter guidance and termination behavior. Every sentence adds functional value, and no redundant or filler content is present.

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 the essential lifecycle: starting, monitoring, adjusting, and stopping. It explains dry-run semantics and stopping triggers. However, it does not describe the structure of the `playbook` object or the meaning of `keep_frames`, which may be important for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema and related tools (voltage_validate_playbook) partially mitigates this.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does explain dry_run (including override semantics and default behavior) and target_period_s (with recommended values), but it does not explain `playbook` (the required parameter) or `keep_frames`. Since playbook is central and the schema offers no description, this leaves a gap for an agent constructing a valid call.

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 opens with 'Start a Playbook,' a specific verb-resource pairing that clearly states the tool's core function. It immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning polling with voltage_status, stopping with voltage_stop, and live adjustment with voltage_steer, so the agent can tell it apart without opening other schemas.

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 provides explicit context for when to use dry_run ('the correct way to check that your states, guards and transitions behave before letting it touch the machine'), recommends values for target_period_s, and explains how to stop or adjust a run using sibling tools. It also details automatic stopping conditions (budget, keyboard/mouse input, panic file), giving clear operational guidance.

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