local_gpu_start_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the prerequisite of a previous recommendation and the exact-copy requirement, adding some behavioral context. However, it omits side effects, authorization needs, or what 'start_run_boundary' means, and whether the run starts a background process.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main verb and key constraint. It avoids fluff, though phrases like 'remaining run fields' are vague. Overall, it is concise and structured enough for a short tool description.

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 tool is complex (13 parameters, nested objects, enums, no parameter descriptions) but the description gives almost no guidance on how to fill parameters or what workflow precedes this call. The mismatch between 'start_run_boundary' and the actual schema further reduces completeness, leaving the description inadequate for reliable 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only references 'start_run_boundary', which is not a property in the schema (and additionalProperties is false). It vaguely says 'add the remaining run fields' without explaining any of the 13 parameters or nested objects, providing minimal semantic value.

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 identifies the action ('Create a visual-asset run') and adds a key constraint ('only after later user confirmation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that generate images or finalize runs. It is specific about the resource and action.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance ('only after later user confirmation') and instructs to copy 'start_run_boundary exactly' from a prior recommendation, which helps when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it's one step below full guidance.

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