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

Annotations already indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness. The description adds the context of starting training after upload, but does not disclose other behaviors like asynchronicity, potential long execution time, response format, or error conditions. It provides adequate but not rich behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits necessary parameter explanation and behavioral details. Conciseness is valued, but not at the cost of essential information. It could be slightly expanded without losing efficiency.

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 has only one parameter and an output schema that is not described, the description should cover prerequisites (mentioned), response semantics (missing), error possibilities, and async behavior. The context of starting a training job implies possible long-running or queued execution, but no such detail is provided. The description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the only parameter (jobId). However, the description never explicitly states that jobId is the ID returned by create_training_job. It only implies this by referencing the upload URL from create_training_job. An agent would benefit from a clear statement like 'The jobId returned by create_training_job.' This omission fails to add meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('Starts') and the resource ('the private cloud RVC training job'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_training_job (which prepares the job) and get_training_job (which checks status). It is specific and immediately informative.

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 explicitly says 'Use this only after the source audio was successfully PUT to the upload URL returned by create_training_job,' providing a clear precondition and referencing the correct sibling tool. This tells the agent exactly when and after what step to invoke this tool.

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