start_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses that the operation is asynchronous ('Enqueue') and that it returns a durable QUEUED snapshot rather than blocking for completion. However, it omits other important behavioral details such as idempotency, failure modes, permissions, or what happens to the run after queueing.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with an active verb and no filler. 'Durable QUEUED snapshot' compactly conveys the core return contract without wasting words.

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?

The description covers the core enqueue-and-return behavior, and the presence of an output schema helps with return-value expectations. However, the lack of parameter semantics and the absence of guidance around prerequisites or sibling workflow steps make it only minimally complete for an agent deciding how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 does not explain either run_id or recipe_path. recipe_path is somewhat inferable as the recipe to run, but run_id is opaque: the schema only shows it is optional with a null default, and the description adds no meaning about when or why to supply it.

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 and resource: it 'Enqueue[s] a run' and immediately returns its snapshot. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lifecycle tools like validate_run, plan_run, cancel_run, and get_run_status, which are about checking, planning, canceling, or reading rather than launching.

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 clearly implies the tool is used to launch a run, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. An agent must infer from sibling names that validate_run or plan_run might be prerequisites, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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