zenml_action_resource

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context by warning that effects may occur outside the ZenML server and that actions are never retried, which goes beyond what the structured annotations state alone. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, where to get exact action/payload details, and the key cautions about external effects and retries. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no boilerplate.

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?

For a destructive arbitrary-action tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description covers the critical facts: finite scope, lookup procedure, exact identifiers, external side effects, and no retries. The only omitted details, such as specific action names, are intentionally delegated to zenml_describe_resources, which is the correct source.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by telling the agent to use zenml_describe_resources for exact action names and payload schema, and by clarifying that every identifier must be an exact UUID. This adds real meaning to resource_id/project_id and provides a lookup mechanism for action/payload. It still leaves resource_type values and project_id requirements somewhat implicit.

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 a concrete verb ('Run') and identifies the target as a single finite ZenML lifecycle/relation action, which is enough to communicate the tool's core function. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite: consult zenml_describe_resources(resource_type, "action") to discover exact action names and payload schema. It also warns that actions are never retried and may have effects outside the server. It does not explicitly compare against CRUD siblings like zenml_create_resource or zenml_delete_resource, but the usage context is clear.

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