Launch Study Run

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail beyond that: reuse the same submission_key after an ambiguous response and never invent another key. It also discloses conflict handling ('Budget/state conflicts require inspection') and prerequisites that annotations cannot express.

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 four dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct operational constraint: prerequisites, conflict handling, and idempotent retry behavior.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering idempotency/side-effect characteristics, the description covers the remaining essentials: prerequisites, budget/state conflict guidance, and retry semantics. Nothing critical is missing for an agent deciding whether and how to call this 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?

Only the submission_key parameter has schema documentation (25% coverage), but the description supplies meaning for the others: 'active study' qualifies study_id, 'immutable executable revision' defines revision_id, and 'same-study policy' constrains policy_id. This partially compensates for the sparse schema.

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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Launch a frozen revision within study attempt/concurrency budgets.' It also adds distinguishing constraints (active study, immutable executable revision, same-study policy) that separate this from generic run tools like run_scenario or run_optimizer.

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 explicitly lists prerequisites: 'Requires an active study, immutable executable revision and same-study policy.' It also gives direct when-to-use and when-not-to behavior: budget/state conflicts require inspection rather than a new attempt key, and the same submission_key must be reused after an ambiguous response.

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