make_run_scenario

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses wait timeout (~40s), return values (result vs executionId), and condition for data input. This provides useful behavioral context beyond what schema offers.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Information is front-loaded with the core action, followed by key behavioral notes. Efficient and well-structured.

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, description explains return values and execution model. Covers all key parameters and edge cases (wait, data condition). Complete for a run tool with these annotations.

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 covers all 3 parameters (100%). Description adds meaning: 'data' only relevant for certain triggers, wait default behavior, and that result vs executionId distinction. This is valuable, though not exhaustive.

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 tool runs a scenario on demand, with specific verb 'Run' and resource 'Make.com scenario'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on on-demand execution and mentions key parameters (wait, data) that set it apart.

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 explains when to use wait=true vs false and when data is relevant (scenarios with input triggers). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tool make_start_scenario or state when not to use this tool.

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