update-run

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

While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation), the description adds no behavioral details such as partial update semantics, side effects, or required permissions. With minimal annotation coverage, the description should disclose more about the tool's behavior.

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 short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the key information. It is not verbose, but could include more context without losing conciseness.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits important context like partial update behavior, the unit for endTime (ms), and any constraints on status transitions. The description does not fully inform the agent how to use the tool correctly.

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 description lists the updatable fields, which adds value beyond the schema (50% coverage). However, it does not explain the meaning or constraints of each parameter beyond what is already in the schema. The baseline is adequate given partial schema coverage.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'run', and lists the specific fields that can be updated: status, end time, or name. This is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set-run-tag.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set-run-tag for tags), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent would need to infer usage context from the tool name alone.

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