run_experiment

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

The description adds the 'single-use plan' trait, indicating the plan is consumed by execution. This complements the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) without contradiction, and clarifies an important side effect beyond what annotations provide.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action and includes the key post-condition. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 action, notes the single-use nature, and points to get_experiment for result inspection. Given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations, this is sufficiently complete. It lacks explicit prerequisites but these are inferable from workflow context.

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 for plan_id. The description indirectly refers to 'one single-use plan', which implies the parameter is the plan ID, but does not explicitly explain its source, format, or how to obtain it. This is minimal viable guidance but leaves ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb 'Execute' and resource 'all current trials from one single-use plan', clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like plan_experiment (plan creation) and get_experiment (result inspection). It also states the follow-up step, reinforcing its role in the workflow.

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 implies the tool is used after a plan exists and advises inspecting get_experiment afterwards. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it.

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