spidra_run_preset

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

Adds context beyond the annotations: it discloses cost ('Costs what the same job costs when run directly'), which matters because readOnlyHint=true could otherwise imply a free/no-side-effect call, and it distinguishes synchronous link output (map) from job-id output requiring polling. Nothing contradicts readOnlyHint since the tool itself does not modify stored resources.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then overrides, then return behavior. Dense but no wasted text; the run-preset-vs-template-preset sentence is information-heavy but 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating outcomes: template run object, map links, or a job id for scrape/batch/crawl/search, plus the get_job follow-up. Minor gap: it doesn't describe what the template_run object contains, but that is discoverable via spidra_get_job.

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%, so both params are already documented; the description still adds meaning by explaining that 'overrides' maps to template inputs or tool request fields and is scoped to a single run. That is genuine value beyond the schema's generic 'Inputs or request fields to change for this run only'.

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 ('Run a saved preset') and then immediately splits it into the two concrete cases — template presets vs tool presets — which no sibling (run_template, save_preset, list_presets) offers. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it is not.

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?

Explains the 'for this run only' semantics of overrides and tells the agent what to do next depending on return type ('check a running one with spidra_get_job, type "template_run"'). It does not explicitly state when to call this instead of spidra_run_template or spidra_scrape directly, so one alternative-routing sentence is missing.

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