crystal_run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real value by spelling out what idempotency means concretely (same key → same job_id rather than a duplicate job), but says nothing about async execution, blocking behavior, or failure modes.

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 short sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the idempotency caveat follows. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is only two parameters. What is missing is lifecycle context: the description never tells the agent this kicks off a background job whose progress is checked elsewhere, nor that workflow_path must come from a prior crystal_plan call.

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% and both parameters are already documented in the schema (workflow_path notes it comes from crystal_plan; idempotency_key describes the retry semantics). The description essentially restates the idempotency behavior already present in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

"Start a resolved workflow as a job" gives a specific verb (start) and resource (resolved workflow → job), which separates it from crystal_plan (which produces the resolved workflow). It does not explicitly name a sibling, so an agent must infer the plan→run→job relationship from the schema's reference to crystal_plan.

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 word "resolved" implies the prerequisite that crystal_plan must have already produced the workflow, and the idempotency sentence hints at retry usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of how to observe the started job (crystal_status/crystal_job).

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