createAtcRun

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Creates an ATC run' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether this is a long-running process, what happens on success/failure, or what side effects might occur. The description doesn't address rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'creating' actually entails beyond the basic verb.

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 maximally concise with a single three-word sentence that gets straight to the point. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's perfectly efficient in terms of word economy and structure.

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?

For a tool that creates something (implying mutation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what an ATC run is, what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, or how this differs from related ATC tools. The description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for an agent to use this tool effectively in the broader ecosystem of sibling tools.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so all parameters (variant, mainUrl, maxResults) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Creates an ATC run' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'createAtcRun' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'creates' and resource 'ATC run', but doesn't explain what an ATC run is or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcWorklists'. This provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.

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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple ATC-related sibling tools (atcCheckVariant, atcChangeContact, atcCustomizing, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be selected. The description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or relationships to other tools.

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