run_protection_group

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic action (triggering a run) without disclosing whether the operation is synchronous, what the return value is, or any side effects (e.g., does it wait for completion?). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the action, but it could be slightly longer to include essential context without becoming verbose.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain the result of the operation, expected behavior (e.g., async vs sync), or how to interpret the response. It is too minimal for an action-triggering tool.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, repeating the overall purpose without detailing parameter specifics.

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 action ('Trigger an on-demand backup run') and the resource ('Cohesity protection group'), using a specific verb that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_protection_group' or 'list_protection_groups'.

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 implies the tool is for on-demand runs but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus scheduled backups or other alternatives. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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