Run a pipeline

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: each generation step consumes plan allowance like a single job and video steps draw on the daily video quota. It also states the return payload (run id + estimated provider cost). It stops short of covering failure modes or async semantics.

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 front-loaded sentences: the action first, then the allowance/quota cost model, then the disposal of the returned run id. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the returned run id and cost estimate, and it documents the quota side effects of an open-world execution tool. It is nearly complete, missing only failure/retry expectations for a long-running run.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the prompt's conditional requirement and the graph_id pattern. The description restates the two id sources but adds no syntax or exclusivity detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a pipeline run') and names both accepted input modes (template_id or saved graph_id). It also explicitly points to adsoptimiser_get_pipeline_run for progress, which cleanly separates it from that sibling so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied through the two entry-point parameters (template_id, graph_id) and the progress-check pointer, but it never says when to prefer a template over a saved graph, nor when to use this versus batch_generate. No explicit exclusions are given.

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