Configure Run Engine

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 says nothing about persistence, scope (global vs. per-project despite a project_id parameter), reversibility of the change, or default behavior when optional fields are omitted — only 'configure' implies mutation.

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?

It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy — a single terse phrase with no substance, similar to a stub. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said.

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?

A five-parameter configuration mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation leaves an agent unable to call it correctly beyond guessing at mode. The description is wholly inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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% across five parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not: soft_cap, max_depth, tick_unit, and project_id are entirely unexplained. It only echoes the mode enum values, which the schema already declares.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (配置 Run 引擎) and names the two mode values the tool operates on, which matches the schema enum. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as configure_pacing or simulate_run, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which alternative sibling to reach for. The parenthetical mode list is configuration content, not usage guidance.

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