executions_run

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the state change and error conditions (400 for invalid states or parent cycle finished). However, it doesn't mention permissions, idempotency, or any side effects on other 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 sentences that front-load the purpose and then add constraints. Every sentence adds value and there is no unnecessary text.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should mention what a successful response looks like. It only covers error cases, leaving the agent to guess the return on success. For a state-change tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is a UUID but the description never explains what it identifies (the execution). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by stating 'Execution ID' or similar. This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool starts an execution by setting its state to IN_PROGRESS. It differentiates from siblings like executions_pause or executions_finish by specifying the state transition.

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 description explicitly states that the tool is allowed only when the current state is WAITING or PAUSED, and returns 400 otherwise. While it doesn't compare to alternatives, the constraints are clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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