createAtcRun

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'runs ATC' (implying execution) and warns about maxResults truncation and divergence from SAP GUI. However, it does not disclose authorization requirements, whether the operation is destructive, or other side effects. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 sentences, both essential. First sentence states purpose and return. Second sentence is a critical usage warning. No redundant information. Highly efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return (object with 'id' as runResultId). It sets expectations for a multi-step process. However, it could mention the tool's relationship to other ATC tools more explicitly, but the current completeness is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value beyond schema: it reiterates that 'variant' is the worklistId (not check variant name), provides context for 'mainUrl' (obtain via findObjectPath), and adds default and truncation warning for 'maxResults'. This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it is 'STEP 2 of an ATC run' and specifies the action ('Runs ATC over an object/package') and the return value ('returns an object whose id is the runResultId for atcWorklists'). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like atcCheckVariant and atcWorklists.

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 explicit guidance: 'IMPORTANT: variant here must be the worklistId returned by atcCheckVariant — NOT the check variant name.' This clarifies the prerequisite and correct usage. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context of being step 2 implies it should follow atcCheckVariant.

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