run_actor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'optional input and configuration' but doesn't disclose what happens during execution: whether this is synchronous/asynchronous, what permissions are needed, if it consumes resources/credits, what happens on failure, or what the expected output format is. For a tool that initiates potentially resource-intensive operations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. Every word earns its place: 'Start' (verb), 'new run' (action), 'of an actor' (resource), 'with optional input and configuration' (scope). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'run' entails, what happens after starting (e.g., returns a run ID?), error conditions, or resource implications. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively despite the complete parameter schema.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'optional input and configuration' which is already evident from the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Start a new run') and resource ('of an actor'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_actor' or 'list_actor_runs' by focusing on execution rather than retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'run_task' which has a similar execution pattern for a different resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing actor), when to choose this over 'run_task', or any constraints beyond the optional parameters listed. The agent must infer usage from parameter names alone.

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