Run a Wiro model

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: bounded wait behavior, the nextAction delegation pattern, and the requirement to present returned media resources to the user. It stops short of discussing error handling or permission requirements, but with annotation coverage this is a solid 4.

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?

Six sentences, each dense with operational value: purpose, modality support, prerequisite, async handling, exclusion rule, and user-facing presentation requirement. No redundant phrasing; information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

The description covers the full execution lifecycle: prerequisite schema call, running the model, bounded wait behavior, delegation to wait_for_task, and final media presentation. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return values. This is complete for a complex async tool.

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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including details on file parameter URL passing. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics; it only references get_model_schema for discovery. Per the rubric, baseline 3 applies when schema coverage is high and the description does not significantly extend parameter understanding.

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 opens with 'Run any AI model on Wiro' and lists supported modalities, clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_model_schema and wait_for_task by focusing on execution rather than schema retrieval or status polling.

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?

Provides explicit workflow: 'Call get_model_schema first' for parameter discovery, and instructs to delegate to wait_for_task when the response indicates nextAction.tool = 'wait_for_task'. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Never call run_model again for the same request.' This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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