edgegate_create_bg_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: the internal effect (populates runner_config_json), error behavior (mismatch hint when eval_set_sha256 differs), and auth requirement (workspace admin). This goes beyond a simple 'create' statement and helps the agent anticipate outcomes.

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 three sentences with the primary action front-loaded, followed by error behavior and auth. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.

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?

The description covers purpose, error, and auth, but lacks any mention of return values or what happens after run creation (e.g., run ID, status check). Given no output schema and a 9-param tool with nested objects, the description is adequate but could be more complete by noting how to track the run or what response to expect.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds context about the relationship between reference and eval-set versions (mismatch hint) but does not significantly elaborate on parameter formatting or usage beyond schema. It meets baseline but does not compensate for the small uncovered portion.

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 tool's action: 'Wire a compiled genie bundle + published eval set + reference oracle into a behavioral-gate Run.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the context of populating runner_config_json distinguishes it from sibling tools like edgegate_create_pipeline or edgegate_run_gate. It unambiguously identifies this as the tool for creating a background run.

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 usage prerequisites (compiled bundle, published eval set, reference) and mentions error conditions, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like edgegate_run_gate or edgegate_rerun_bg. There's no 'use this instead of' or 'when not to use' guidance. However, the context makes it clear this is for on-device self-hosted runs.

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