run_template

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It details the internal steps (fetch, convert, apply overrides, submit), discloses the converter coverage (~88%) and that skipped nodes are reported. It does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or modifies state, but the context implies it executes a run (non-destructive). Overall, good behavioral disclosure beyond the missing annotations.

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 relatively concise and well-structured: purpose, usage, overrides format, post-run steps, and limitations. Minor informal phrasing ('LOOK') but adds clarity. Could be slightly tighter, but effectively communicates essential information without verbosity.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values. It provides sufficient context: prerequisites (template_slots, find_missing_nodes), the process, limitations (subgraph, converter coverage), and post-run actions. Lacks explanation of 'pack' and 'source' but defaults are provided. Reasonably complete for a complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'overrides' parameter in detail (format: {node_id: {input_name: value}} and source from template_slots). However, it does not explain 'pack', 'source', or 'client_id' beyond default values. While overrides is the most complex parameter, the lack of explanation for others reduces the score.

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 specifies the action ('Run a known-good template with input overrides') and resource ('template'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'submit_workflow' and 'get_template'. It emphasizes the key differentiator: 'WITHOUT loading the graph into context.'

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?

Explicitly instructs to use 'template_slots' first for overrides, and after execution to call 'get_result' then 'get_image' (with a caveat about interpreting results). Also recommends confirming node/model existence with 'find_missing_nodes', and notes the limitation with subgraph templates. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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