run_transformation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a 'WRITE OPERATION' requiring confirmation and notes a prerequisite (reading a schema file via the schema_file parameter). However, it doesn't detail side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, each earning its place. The warning is front-loaded for immediate visibility. No extraneous words or redundant explanations. Perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps. It doesn't specify the return value (e.g., job ID, status), whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, or failure modes. Given the complexity of running a transformation (potentially long-running), the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'if a valid identifier is provided' echoes the schema). The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for any gaps.

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 uses the specific verb 'Runs' and clearly identifies the resource as 'the transformation'. Combined with the warning about being a write operation, it unambiguously states the tool's action. Among siblings like 'cancel_transformation', 'test_transformation_project', and 'update_transformation', this tool's purpose of executing a transformation is distinct.

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 warning explicitly says 'Confirm with user before calling,' which is a strong usage guideline about when to call. While it doesn't list explicit alternatives or when not to use, the sibling context (e.g., 'test_transformation_project') implies when testing is appropriate. This provides clear context for safe invocation.

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