make_run_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the waiting behavior (up to ~40s), the fire-and-forget option, the error for inactive scenarios, and the precondition for 'data' input. No hidden behaviors.

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?

Three concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action. Efficient and clear.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return types, error scenarios, and prerequisites. All three parameters are explained, and the essential workflow is complete for correct invocation.

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 adds context beyond the schema for the 'data' parameter (only relevant for triggers that accept input) and explains the 'wait' effects. Schema coverage is 100%, but scenario_id lacks additional description beyond its schema definition.

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 'Run a Make.com scenario on demand (right now).' It identifies the specific verb and resource, and differentiates from sibling tools like make_start_scenario by noting the activation requirement.

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?

Explicitly states when to use, describes both wait modes, and advises using make_start_scenario if the scenario is inactive. No confusion about alternatives.

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