run_cycle

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it runs in the background, never silent-blocks, returns a handle immediately, logs progress, and ensures config files are untouched. These details add significant context that annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not fully capture.

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 informative and front-loaded with the main action, but it could be slightly more concise. The parameter details are integrated into a single paragraph; bullet points might improve readability, but the information density is high and every sentence adds value.

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?

For a tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers inputs well but does not mention the output format beyond 'run handle'. Prerequisites (e.g., account must exist) are not stated. However, the output schema exists to fill the return value gap. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: account limits to one account, and pipelines is a comma-separated subset of specific pipeline names with mapping to ActionConfig flags. The CLI equivalent reference adds valuable context. This compensates completely for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 that the tool runs a legacy batch automation cycle in the background and returns a run handle. It specifies the verb 'run' and the resource 'legacy batch automation cycle', distinguishing it from siblings like process_queue. The parameter details further clarify the purpose.

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 mentions that draft mode does not apply, which provides a negative usage hint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., process_queue or engage). There is no direct comparison to sibling tools, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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