launch_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Launch' without disclosing side effects, permissions, run behavior (e.g., immediate vs queued), or error handling. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it omits critical information necessary for correct usage. While concise, it is not appropriately sized given the tool's complexity.

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 lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the one-sentence description is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters and a run configuration input.

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, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any of the parameters (repository_location, repository_name, job_name, run_config). Users cannot infer parameter semantics from the description.

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 action ('Launch') and the resource ('a Dagster job run'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_repositories or terminate_run. However, it lacks additional context about the launch process or specific job selection.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like materialize_asset or terminate_run. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid repository location/name or when to use run_config.

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