Start a run of a checklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the most important behavioral trait: steps are copied into the run so later checklist edits do not affect it. It also states the cost model (free, uncapped) and the returned id. It does not cover failure modes or prerequisites, but the core side-effect semantics are exposed.

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 definition is three short sentences with the purpose and return value front-loaded. The second and third sentences earn their place by explaining snapshot semantics and cost behavior without any wasted words.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description plus schema cover the main workflow: what is started, what is returned, and the key copy-on-start behavior. The only notable gap is that the optional note parameter is not described anywhere, and prerequisites such as the checklist needing to exist are left implicit.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters and the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; only the optional note parameter remains undocumented in both places.

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 opening verb and object, 'Start a dated run of a checklist', name the exact action and resource, and the return value (RUN-YYYY-NNNN id) is explicitly stated. This clearly separates it from sibling run_* tools, whose verbs point to checking, showing, listing, or deleting runs.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling tool is named as an alternative. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'Start' in the title and first sentence, plus the reassurance that runs are free and never capped.

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