run_checkpoint

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the obvious action. It omits details on whether the operation is synchronous, if it creates background jobs, side effects, or what the output contains. The schema notes checkpoint_name is unused, but the description doesn't clarify this.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's basic function.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks workflow context and behavioral details. It fails to mention that checkpoint_name is unused, background_tasks behavior, or how this relates to sibling tools like create_suite and get_validation_result. A more complete description would clarify the operation's nature and placement in the pipeline.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal semantic context by mapping 'expectation suite' to suite_name and 'dataset' to dataset_handle, but it doesn't explain the undocumented background_tasks parameter or the 'unused' checkpoint_name.

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 identifies the tool's action as running a validation checkpoint on a dataset with an expectation suite. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_validation_result (retrieval) and create_suite (creation).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or how it fits into the workflow. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., suite must exist) or contrast with get_validation_result.

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