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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: agents alternate turns unattended, output lands in the room's stream, anyone in the room can read along or stop it, and the call may return a needs_confirmation envelope that requires approval before proceeding.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what happens, then the when-to-use, then the confirmation caveat. Each sentence carries information; slightly dense but no filler.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the important runtime behaviors: unattended turn-taking, delivery to the room stream, interruption by room members, and the confirmation envelope. It leaves operational details like what a stop does or how the sidebar interacts, but the schema covers the parameter-level specifics.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning on top: 'the flows must already be in the room' clarifies the flowIds source, 'say what they'll work on and who' maps to goal plus flowIds, and the needs_confirmation note explains the role of approvalId.

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?

States a specific verb (starts) and resource (assistant and flows in a room) plus the mechanism: agents take turns without a person between, and the result returns to the room's stream. It is clearly differentiated from sibling rooms_add_flow, which it names as a prerequisite rather than an alternative.

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?

Gives explicit triggering conditions: 'when someone asks for agents to work something out, or to hand a specialist flow a job.' It also names the prerequisite (flows must already be in the room via rooms_add_flow). It does not contrast with the neighbouring workbench_flows_run tool, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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