create_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions idempotency via 'run_key', which is good, but it does not disclose that this is a write/mutate operation, potential side effects (e.g., triggering execution), authorization requirements, or error conditions (e.g., if flow_id doesn't exist). This is a significant gap.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is concise with no extraneous words, and the idempotency detail is appropriately front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with nested parameter) and availability of an output schema (though not described), the description provides a minimal but adequate outline. It lacks details on the return value, error handling, and usage context with respect to the flow lifecycle. For a tool with many siblings, more context would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'run_key' by explaining its role in idempotency, which goes beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it does not describe 'flow_id' or the nested 'req' parameter, leaving half the schema undocumented. The baseline 3 is appropriate given partial added value.

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 the tool's purpose: starting a run of a compiled flow. It uses the specific verb 'Start' and the resource 'run', and the mention of 'idempotent on run_key' adds precision. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_run' (retrieval) and 'compile_flow' (compilation).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_run' or 'create_flow'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., flow must be compiled) or exclusions (e.g., not for un-compiled flows). The context is implied but not explicit.

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