start_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits, but it lacks any mention of side effects, idempotency, error handling, destuctiveness, or authorization needs. The agent has no clue what happens when the tool runs.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient, but it sacrifices essential details. A few more sentences would improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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 tool with 6 parameters and an output schema, this single sentence is insufficient. The description does not explain the return value or how the configuration generation works, despite the complexity indicated by the 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage for its 6 parameters. The description does not explain any parameters or their roles, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names alone.

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 specifies 'generate Champollion dataset YAML configuration files' and mentions 'Stage 3', which gives a clear verb and resource. However, 'Launch Stage 3' is ambiguous—it could mean initiating a pipeline step or just generating files for that stage, and it does not explicitly distinguish from other 'start_*' sibling tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other 'start_*' tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, order of operations, or exclusion conditions.

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