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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: what the server actually persists ('only bounded metadata and an attested outcome') and that the real work happens on a connected local agent, hinting at an async handoff. It still omits failure modes (e.g. no connected agent) and how the outcome is retrieved.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and the persistence caveat second, with no filler. It is efficient, though the density means some behavioral nuance is compressed rather than developed.

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?

With 6 parameters, a nested details object and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the server-side storage scope but stops short of describing the response or how success/attestation is confirmed. Adequate for identification, thin for a handoff-style mutation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including the nested details object, idempotencyKey retry semantics and the 'not a file path' node/ project disambiguation is already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Request the connected local agent to start node work') and clarifies it is a handoff to a local agent rather than server-side execution. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like begin_agent_execution or finish_node_work, so an agent still has to infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, despite a crowded sibling set (finish_node_work, begin_agent_execution, route_agent_task). The only usage signal is the implied pairing of 'start node work' with the projectId/nodeId parameters, leaving sequencing and preconditions to inference.

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