run_enterprise_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important non-obvious trait: high-risk actions return an approval id and never execute directly. However, it omits other behavior an agent needs, such as what happens for low-risk actions, permission/role effects, and the return shape.

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?

Two short sentences, the safety-relevant trait is front-loaded after the core purpose, and there is no filler. Everything present earns its place.

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 3-parameter agent-invocation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain parameter meaning, valid role values, return contents, or how it relates to the decide_enterprise_approval sibling. Only the approval-gating behavior is covered.

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% and the description adds nothing about the three parameters (role, message, user_id). An agent gets no explanation of what role values are valid, how user_id is used, or what message should contain, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb+resource combo ('Run the governed Agent'), which clearly separates it from the search/decide siblings. It is clear but does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer for what task, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing between this tool and siblings like search_enterprise_policy or decide_enterprise_approval. The approval flow implies a relationship with decide_enterprise_approval, but that link is left entirely to inference.

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