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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the creator-only permission constraint, which is important for an agent to know. However, it does not explain side effects, whether starting is idempotent, what happens if the table is already started, or what errors may occur.

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 two short sentences with no wasted language. The action and the key eligibility constraint are both front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple one-parameter action with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the most important permission rule. It could say more about state requirements or failure behavior, but it is largely complete for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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 single 'tableId' parameter is already documented. The description adds a small amount of meaning by implying the table must be one the caller created, but it does not add format or validation details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Start play at a table.' It also narrows the scope to 'a table you created,' which helps distinguish it from joining or spectating a table. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the action is clear.

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 clear precondition: 'Only the table's creator can start it.' This tells the agent when the tool is eligible and when it is not. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as ad_join_table or ad_spectate_table, but the usage context is clear enough.

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