Start Strategy Run

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations by disclosing that the tool consumes a local execution approval, launches an asynchronous durable job, and returns a job_id for polling. Nothing contradicts the annotations, which already mark the tool as idempotent and non-destructive.

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?

Two sentences carry the full purpose and the required follow-up workflow with no filler. The key action is front-loaded, and every clause adds operational value.

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 is incomplete for invocation because all four required parameters are undocumented in both the schema and the description, and prerequisite steps such as acquiring the run plan and approval are only implied. The output schema covers return values, but the parameter semantics remain a major gap.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for all four required parameters, and the description explains none of them. run_plan_id, run_token, approval_id, and idempotency_key receive no semantic meaning, so an agent cannot reliably determine what values to supply.

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 that this tool consumes an execution approval and launches a durable job, then returns a job_id. It differentiates itself from siblings like prepare_strategy_run, get_run_status, and cancel_strategy_run by naming the launch action and the resulting polling workflow.

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 lifecycle guidance: poll get_run_status until a terminal state, then read get_run_result on SUCCEEDED or get_run_logs on failure. It does not explicitly state prerequisites or when not to use this tool, but the follow-up workflow gives clear operational context.

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