run_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional input override' but fails to describe key traits: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what happens after running (e.g., asynchronous execution). This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs mutations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in a single sentence. There's no wasted text, making it efficient for quick comprehension, though it could benefit from slightly more detail to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 the complexity of running a task (likely involving execution and potential side-effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage correctly.

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 description adds minimal semantic value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It hints at 'optional input override' relating to 'input_data', but doesn't explain the merging behavior or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Run a task with optional input override' clearly states the verb ('Run') and resource ('task'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'run' entails (e.g., execution, initiation, or processing). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task' or 'list_tasks' by implying an action, but lacks specificity about the outcome or context of running a task.

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. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'run_task' over 'run_actor' (a sibling tool), or prerequisites like needing an existing task. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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