Start ToolQuest Run

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

Because the annotations are all false and provide little safety or mutability information, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It adds meaningful detail: the run is isolated, deterministic, and returns an opaque runId, initial stateVersion, room introduction, and guidance. This gives the agent a solid mental model beyond what the annotations convey.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the return items without excess wording. Every phrase 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 only two optional parameters and an output schema present, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. The return values are disclosed concisely; mentioning how replay_run relates could slightly improve context but is not essential for starting a run.

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 100%, so the schema already documents seed and roomId clearly. The description adds only indirect semantic hints like 'deterministic' linking to the seed and 'isolated' for run behavior, but it does not substantially improve parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Create an isolated deterministic escape-room run') with a clear resource, and the listed return values make the tool's function unambiguous. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like list_rooms and replay_run because it is the creation entry point.

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 verb 'Create' and the term 'run' imply this is the tool for starting new runs, giving reasonable context. However, the description does not explicitly mention alternatives such as replay_run or state when this tool should be used versus resumed/replayed runs, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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