start_orchestration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the main behavior (decompose and return plan awaiting approval) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or storage details.

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 sentence of 13 words, front-loading the core action and result. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words.

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?

Given the simple schema and sibling tools, the description adequately covers the tool's role as the starting point. It mentions the returned values and state, but lacks explanation for the output_dir parameter.

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 0% as the description does not mention any parameters. While parameter names ('Prompt', 'Output Dir') are somewhat intuitive, the description adds no value beyond the schema, failing to clarify optional parameters like output_dir.

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 explicitly states the tool's action: decompose a prompt into a plan, returning a job_id and plan. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools (approve_plan, cancel, etc.) which serve different stages of the workflow.

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 implies this is the initial step for orchestration, but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or mention prerequisites. The purpose is clear enough that an agent would know to call it to start an orchestration.

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