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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces idempotency in operational terms ('waits for the same move rather than starting another') while adding unannotated facts: resume from a memory snapshot in a second or two, blocking until it lands with a 30 s ceiling, and the meaning of interim states (stopping/starting/destroying).

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 short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, when it is unnecessary, how fast it resumes, how it returns and what interim states mean, and retry safety. Nothing is repeated from the title or annotations.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers timing, return semantics, interim states, and retry safety, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only omission is what the returned state/value looks like, which matters slightly since there is no output schema.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter, named 'briq', with a visible pattern in the schema. The description never clarifies what identifier to pass or that it must be a bq_ handle, so it adds nothing beyond the schema, though the gap is small for a single self-evident parameter.

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 specific verb and resource ('Start a stopped briq') and immediately scopes it against the states it does not apply to (sleeping briqs) and the sibling that produces the stopped state (briq_stop). An agent can distinguish it from briq_up/briq_run without opening any schema.

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 enumerates the exact conditions that make this the right call (stopped by briq_stop, by its own exit, or by a limit) and explicitly excludes the sleeping case, pointing to the waking behavior instead. That is a when-to-use plus when-not-to-use statement in a single breath.

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