Manually run a routine

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which indicate write but not destructive. The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose that running a routine creates a run resource, or that using idempotencyKey can prevent duplicates. The description adds some value beyond annotations but could be richer.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. However, the inclusion of internal details like 'Paperclip operation: POST /api/routines/{id}/run' and 'Authorization class: board_or_agent' are not essential for an AI agent and take space that could be used for parameter descriptions. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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 the tool's complexity (many body parameters, nested objects, output schema exists), a single-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of the body, the effect of the run, or how to use the optional fields. The description is far from complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional knowledge.

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%, so the description should compensate. It does not describe any parameters: the required path (routine ID) or the body fields (source, payload, variables, etc.). No guidance on what each parameter does or how to use them. This is a critical gap for a tool with many parameters.

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 states 'Manually run a routine', which is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pc_get_routines_by_id (read) or pc_post_routines_by_id_triggers (create trigger). However, it does not explain what 'run' means in terms of effect (e.g., triggers execution), so not a 5.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when a manual run is appropriate or when to use other tools like pc_get_routines_by_id_runs or triggers. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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