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

Annotations only carry destructiveHint=true, so the description's disclosure that the job is 'billed per token processed' adds genuine behavioral context an agent needs before invoking. It still omits what a 'destructive' create implies (resource consumption, irreversibility) and any auth/permission requirements.

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 clauses, purpose front-loaded, cost warning early, and the cancel pointer placed before the API-endpoint mapping. Efficient overall; the raw 'POST /fine-tunes' endpoint note is the only marginal element.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description never mentions the return value (e.g. the job id that together_cancel_fine_tune would need) or validation-file expectations. Adequate on purpose and cost, thin on outcome and prerequisites for the more advanced parameters.

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 79%, so the schema already documents most of the 14 parameters (model, suffix, training_type, from_checkpoint, etc.). The description only implicitly signals the training_file requirement and adds no format or defaulting detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Start a fine-tuning job on an uploaded training file') and names the sibling that terminates it (together_cancel_fine_tune). An agent can distinguish this from together_get_fine_tune / together_list_fine_tunes immediately.

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?

Names the prerequisite (an already-uploaded training file) and points to the cancellation alternative, so the create/stop pair is unambiguous. It stops short of stating exclusions or when creation is inappropriate, but since no sibling also creates fine-tunes, the routing is clear.

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