run_all_paragraphs

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds real context beyond that: it blocks until completion and uses the async job endpoint specifically to preserve chart/visualization settings. It stops short of saying what happens on partial failure (abort vs. continue).

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?

Two tight sentences plus a short Args block; the core action is front-loaded in the first line and every sentence earns its place by adding execution semantics or parameter detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the blocking behavior and the visualization-preservation rationale. The one gap is failure semantics for a multi-paragraph run, which an agent would want before invoking.

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 carries the full burden, and it does document both parameters — notebook_id as the target notebook and params as an optional dict of dynamic form values with a concrete example. It could go further on how params keys map to form field names.

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 states a specific verb and scope: 'Run all paragraphs in a notebook and wait for completion.' The 'all paragraphs' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the single-paragraph siblings (run_paragraph, run_paragraph_async), though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied through the word 'all' and the note about the async job endpoint; there is no explicit 'use this instead of run_paragraph when...' guidance, nor any mention of prerequisites such as notebook permissions or how this relates to batch_run_paragraph.

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