run_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is non-blocking (returns a run_id for polling) and implies it initiates a run. It does not mention potential side effects or required permissions, but given the nature of the tool, the key behavior is covered. A slight deduction for not detailing what happens to the run after triggering.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a clear pointer to an alternative. No wasted words, ideal size and structure.

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?

The description covers the immediate use case: it tells what it returns (run_id) and how to use an alternative for blocking. It doesn't mention error conditions or setup prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete. A minor gap is not explaining the 'inputs' parameter, but it's not essential for the core purpose.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond the action. It does not clarify what 'inputs' represents or how 'project_id' is used specifically. The schema provides types and requiredness, but the description adds minimal value for parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb 'Trigger' and resource 'Hex project run', clearly stating the action. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool run_and_wait by noting it returns a run_id for polling, making its purpose distinct.

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?

Explicitly tells the user when to use this tool vs an alternative: 'Use run_and_wait instead if you want to block until completion.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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