fabric_run_notebook

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Run a notebook on demand,' omitting whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, if it returns a job ID, or any side effects. No mention of permissions or rate limits.

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 are efficient and front-loaded. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices essential behavioral information, which could be added without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, execution lifecycle, error conditions, or how this tool relates to sibling run tools. An agent lacks key context for correct use.

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 description adds context for 'executionData' as parameters/configuration, which is not explained in the schema (67% coverage). However, it does not provide format details or examples, and the workspace default is already in 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?

The description clearly states 'Run a notebook on demand' with optional parameters, distinguishing it from notebook management tools like fabric_get_notebook or fabric_create_notebook. However, it does not specify the return value or execution model, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling run tools (e.g., fabric_run_dataflow, fabric_run_pipeline). Prerequisites (e.g., workspace existence, notebook ID validity) are not mentioned, and no alternatives are provided.

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