runCollection

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, destructive, and idempotent, so the description is not burdened with flagging side effects. It adds useful context beyond the annotations by revealing that output includes detailed test results and statistics, and it explicitly warns that advanced runtime options such as custom delays are unavailable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 place the core action first, then optional behavior, then a concise limitation. No filler, no repetition of the schema, and the most important operational fact (advanced options not available) is preserved.

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 nine-parameter operation, the schema documents every parameter, and the description gives enough high-level context: what it runs, the output nature, optional environment support, and unsupported features. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit promise of test results and statistics, though an agent might still want an example return shape.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the optional environment concept and notes unavailable advanced options; it does not add new meaning to any individual parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Runs a Postman collection by ID,' then names the expected output ('detailed test results and execution statistics'). This distinguishes it from the many create/get/update sibling tools, and no sibling tool covers running collections.

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?

It clearly implies the tool is for executing an existing collection when the caller supplies a collectionId and optionally an environment. However, it never states when not to use it, any prerequisites, or which sibling tool to prefer instead (e.g., getCollection for inspection). The advanced-parameter note is the only usage guardrail.

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