run_experiment

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call blocks until the run ends, gives concrete latency expectations (400 ticks ~seconds, 3000 ticks/60 agents ~a minute), states that out-of-range values are refused, and explains what is returned including failure logs. It is silent on permissions or persistence side effects, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return values, then the blocking/latency behavior and validation rule. Every clause adds operational value with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value explanation and does so concretely (run id, status, headline metrics, report, failure log tail), plus runtime and validation behavior. Only the semantics of the required 'name' and 'label' inputs remain unaddressed.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that params are overrides 'by name (see get_experiment)' and that variant is a named variant, but says nothing about the required 'name' or the 'label' parameter, leaving half the parameters unilluminated beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Run an experiment to completion') and adds the two input modes (parameter overrides or a named variant). This clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_experiment, list_runs, and compare_runs.

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 context for when this tool applies (synchronous execution of an experiment) and points to get_experiment for parameter names. It does not, however, address when to prefer sibling tools like run_campaign or tune, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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