Run Study

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

Adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: execution is asynchronous and the immediate return is a jobId, so the agent knows not to expect results inline. Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). It doesn't disclose anything about long-running behavior, failure modes, or whether the solve can be cancelled mid-flight beyond naming cancel_job.

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 tight sentences, zero waste, with the core action and asynchrony front-loaded before the follow-up tool routing.

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 an output schema, full parameter documentation, and annotations all present, the description only needs to supply the async contract and next steps, which it does. A note on the prepare→run lifecycle ordering would make it fully self-contained, but everything required to call it correctly is available.

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% and the nested ArtifactRef is documented in detail, including the revision-mismatch rejection rule. The description only reinforces immutability of 'prepared'; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Execute an immutable prepared study') and the execution mode ('asynchronously'), which clearly separates it from prepare_study and validate_study. It doesn't explicitly name the prerequisite tool, but the resource name suffices to identify the operation.

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 second sentence routes the agent to follow-up tools (inspect_job, list_jobs, query_results, cancel_job), which is useful post-invocation guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to the lifecycle (e.g., 'call after prepare_study succeeds and optionally after validate_study') and no exclusions.

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