art.production.start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this action mutates the job's state, whether it requires prior planning, what happens if the job is already running, or whether it is idempotent. For a state-changing operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted words. The content is minimal, but for a single-line description it is appropriately compact and front-loaded with the action. It is not padded with filler.

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?

This is a state-changing operation with no annotations, no output schema, and a single required parameter. The description is too minimal to guide the agent: it does not define what 'start' means (versus resume/create), what conditions must hold, what the expected side effects are, or what a successful call returns. Given the tool has many distinguishing siblings, this level of detail is inadequate.

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 declaration coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter job_id is described in the schema as 'Production job ID'. The description adds no meaning beyond this — it does not clarify whether the ID must refer to a planned, queued, or draft job, or what type of job ID (UUID, numeric, etc.) is expected. Baseline 3 holds because the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 has a clear purpose: it starts a production job. However, 'production job' is vague and the description does not specify what 'start' entails relative to siblings like 'resume', 'plan', or 'create'. It lists a clear verb and resource but lacks the specificity to fully distinguish itself from closely related production actions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus close siblings like art.production.resume or art.production.create. The agent is left to infer that 'start' may be the initial execution trigger, but there is no wording describing prerequisites, sequencing, or when an alternative (e.g., resume) would be more appropriate.

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