abx_post_action_runs

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/open-world profile, so the description's main added value is the deprecation status and removal warning, which is genuinely behavioral context not captured by annotations. It does not describe side effects or what gets created, but the safety profile is covered.

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?

Front-loads the deprecation tag and the action, with the replacement path last where it belongs. Slightly redundant in restating 'Create an action run' then 'Creates a new action run', but no substantive waste.

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 create tool with no output schema and a large nested body, the description covers purpose and deprecation but says nothing about required fields, expected result, or what state the new run starts in. Adequate but leaves real gaps an agent calling a creation endpoint would want.

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 100% and the single 'body' parameter carries a full nested property list, so the description adds nothing about fields like runState, actionType, or actionVersionId. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ('Creates a new action run') and the endpoint path, so an agent knows exactly what it does. It does not name the sibling tool that supersedes it (abx_post_actions_by_id_action_runs), which would have made the differentiation explicit.

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?

Gives clear exclusions — 'deprecated and will be removed' — and points to the recommended replacement path POST /abx/api/resources/actions/{action-id}/action-runs. The guidance is in raw URL form rather than the MCP tool name, so the agent must map the path to a sibling itself.

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