Run iGrid AI agent

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutation tool. However, the description adds no context about what the mutation entails (e.g., side effects, irreversible actions, resource consumption). Given the annotation covers the destructive nature, but the description does not elaborate on specifics like state changes or concurrency limits.

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 short but not optimally structured. 'WRITE role' prefix is unclear and wastes space without adding value. The endpoint detail is helpful, but the single sentence tries to cover both purpose and endpoint. It could be more concise by removing 'WRITE role' and focusing on the agent execution context.

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?

Given the tool has a single, complex nested parameter with no schema definition, no output schema, and destructive annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, error states, or how to structure the 'request' object. Sibling tools suggest a broader iGrid ecosystem, but no connection is made.

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 input schema has one required parameter 'request' of type object with no schema definition (additionalProperties: true). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions the endpoint and does not explain the structure or expected content of the 'request' object. The nested object is completely undocumented.

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 verb ('run') and resource ('existing iGrid AI agent') and includes the exact endpoint (POST /api/ai/run). It distinguishes from siblings like igrid_export_csv and igrid_ingest_csv by focusing on agent execution rather than data export or ingestion. However, 'WRITE role' is ambiguous and would benefit from elaboration.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description lists sibling tools but does not differentiate use cases. It does not state whether the agent must be pre-configured, what prerequisites exist, or when to choose this over igrid_decide_action or igrid_propose_action.

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