run_hex_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states basic action and return format. It misses critical behavioral details: whether this is a read/write operation, if it triggers long-running processes, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what 'update_published_results' entails (e.g., destructive changes).

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 appropriately sized with a clear header and bullet points for args and returns. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though the bullet format could be more streamlined (e.g., combining into prose). No wasted sentences, but minor structural improvements possible.

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 complexity (3 params, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on execution behavior, error handling, return value structure beyond 'JSON string', and how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool that likely triggers significant operations, this is inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters and adds minimal semantics (e.g., 'UUID' for project_id, 'Optional' for input_params), but doesn't explain parameter formats, what input_params should contain, or implications of update_published_results. This provides some value but leaves 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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and resource 'Hex project', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_hex_project_runs' or 'get_hex_run_status', which might be related to execution monitoring.

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 like 'cancel_hex_run' or 'get_hex_run_status'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the project must be in a specific state, or when to choose this over other execution-related tools.

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