run_cycle

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

The description discloses important behaviors: runs in background, returns immediately (never silent-blocks), logs go to logs, config files are never mutated, and draft mode does not apply. Without annotations, this is good transparency, though it could mention any rate limits or required permissions.

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 well-structured: one dense paragraph with clear sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and behavior, then details parameters, and ends with an additional note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It explains the run handle and logging. However, it could briefly mention that the handle can be used with a tool like 'get_run_status' for tracking. Overall, it is fairly complete for a batch automation 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains that 'account' restricts to one account and 'pipelines' is a comma-separated list of specific pipeline names mapped to ActionConfig enable flags, adding crucial meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the tool runs the legacy batch automation cycle in the background and returns a run handle immediately. It specifies the verb 'run', the resource 'legacy batch automation cycle', and key behaviors (non-blocking, logs). This distinguishes it from other tools like 'process_queue' or 'engage'.

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 explains parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_queue' or 'research_and_stage'. It implies usage for batch automation cycles but lacks direct when-to-use guidance. Some context is provided via parameter explanations, but no exclusions or comparisons.

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