local_gpu_branch_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait ('immutable') but omits side effects, permissions, or how the child run relates to the workflow. For a creation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters. Conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary details; this is too terse.

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's complexity (6 parameters, nested contract, output schema, 16 siblings), a one-sentence description is completely inadequate. It lacks context on the run lifecycle, the meaning of contract fields, and when to start a child versus other run operations.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter meaning. It only implies 'parent_round' through 'reviewed parent round,' but the complex contract, edit_mode, and denoising_strength are unexplained.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('immutable child revision run'), and it distinguishes this from sibling tools like local_gpu_start_run and local_gpu_generate_round by specifying it is a child of a reviewed parent round.

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 phrase 'from one reviewed parent round' provides clear context and a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use. Still, it gives enough directional guidance.

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