async_run_inline

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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: immediate 202 response, Location header pointing to status, required Idempotency-Key for at-most-once submission, deduplication returning the existing in-flight operation, and dry-run validation. This is especially valuable given the annotations only convey read/write/open-world flags and the tool has a side-effecting async workflow.

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 compact and front-loaded, moving from the operation to response behavior to required header to deduplication and dry-run validation. The first sentence is broad and somewhat generic, but every later sentence adds concrete, useful 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?

Given the complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers invocation, required header, duplicate behavior, and dry-run mode. It intentionally leaves polling/result retrieval to sibling tools like get_async_operation and get_async_operation_results, which is a reasonable boundary.

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 only 50%, but the description adds important semantic meaning to Idempotency-Key (at-most-once deduplication) and dryRun (validate without creating an operation), which the schema itself does not explain. The config and customerContext parameters are already reasonably described in the schema, so the description compensates for the gaps where it matters most.

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 names a specific operation: submitting an async report execution job using an inline configuration and receiving a 202 with a Location header. It distinguishes from async_run_report_by_id by emphasizing 'inline configuration', though it never names the sibling or states the contrast explicitly.

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?

It provides useful context: use for async submissions with inline configs, and use ?dryRun=true to validate without creating an operation. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over async_run_report_by_id or any other alternatives.

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