Run preset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond that – it says nothing about what a preset executes, whether it hits a remote instance, or what the result contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the optional capability second; nothing is wasted. It is terse but not at the cost of clarity.

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 simple 3-parameter, non-destructive, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves the agent without context on what a preset is or what running one returns, but the safety profile is carried by annotations.

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 100%, with name, instance and overrides each documented in the schema itself (including the 'staging'/'prod' example and the override shape). The description's phrase "optionally overriding its arguments" adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Run a named preset query") and notes the override capability, which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling list_presets. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives such as search_logs, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer that a preset must already exist (via list_presets) and that this is the execution step. No alternatives or preconditions are named, so usage is only implied.

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