Run a macro

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the concurrency clamp ('reduced to your plan's limit (Pro 3, Enterprise 10)'), the side effect that stopped profiles are started and then closed again, and a confirmation prompt that fires every time for multi-profile runs. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before triggering an open-world, non-idempotent mutation, and nothing contradicts destructiveHint=false since side effects are self-cleaning.

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?

Four short sentences, all front-loaded with the core action first, then concurrency capping, side effects, consent, and return value. Every sentence contributes information not present in the schema or annotations; nothing is redundant.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, capping behavior, profile lifecycle side effects, human confirmation, and the return handle plus its consumers. An agent has enough to decide and invoke correctly without further context.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description has to carry parameter meaning, and it does for concurrency (clamped to plan limits, with concrete Pro/Enterprise values) and profileIds (one or more, with not-running profiles started and shut down). macroId is only implied to reference a saved macro, with no note on whether it must exist or how to obtain it, so one gap remains.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Runs a saved macro on one or more profiles') with the batching scope ('a few at a time'), which cleanly separates it from get_macro, save_macro, and list_macros siblings. An agent can identify both what it does and the unit of operation without opening the schema.

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?

Names the follow-up tools explicitly ('Returns a runId for get_run_status and stop_run'), which tells the agent how to continue after execution and implicitly routes monitoring/abort to siblings. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to use it or prerequisites such as macro validity, keeping it below a 5.

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