federation_run_subscriptions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares the tool is MUTATING + EGRESS, that the question is sent to subscription providers and quota is spent, that it runs as a background worker, and that it answers immediately (async). This is the critical side-effect/cost disclosure an agent needs before calling.

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with the core action, then the consent/cost constraint, then workflow. Almost every clause earns its place, though the run-on style and mixed purpose/behavior content make it slightly harder to scan than it could be.

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 no annotations, no output schema, a nested 'models' object, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers behavior and workflow well but leaves genuine gaps: it does not explain how roles/models should be structured, and return-shape expectations are only loosely implied by 'answers immediately'. Adequate but not complete for a tool of this 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% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It indirectly illuminates backends (claude/codex/kimi) and roles ('plays each role') and hints at models ('with its model'), but never defines the format or meaning of the roles/models inputs or the session_id, and the nested 'models' object is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'play an OPEN federation session with the user's subscriptions' via a background worker, with each subscription (claude/codex/kimi) playing each role. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the federation_open prerequisite, the poll loop, and federation_assemble. Dense, but an agent can tell what this does versus federation_open/claim/submit.

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?

Explicit when-to-use condition: ONLY with explicit user consent, naming the subscriptions. It also gives the surrounding workflow (replicas in federation_open = number of subscriptions; then federation_poll until pending=0/claimed=0, then federation_assemble), routing the agent to the right siblings at the right time.

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