Start Fine-Tuning Job

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds one behavioral nugget beyond them, the 'validated' precondition, but says nothing about what state transitions follow, whether a started job can be cancelled, or the non-idempotent implication of a retry.

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 with no filler or repetition, which is structurally clean. It is arguably too terse for a state-changing job-control operation, but as a conciseness measure it wastes nothing.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should cover the required prior state, the source of a valid job_id, and what starting implies for subsequent calls. The 'validated' adjective is the only clue, leaving the lifecycle context largely unexplained.

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?

Only one parameter (job_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the input ('Job ID to start'). The description adds no format, referencing, or sourcing detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

'Start a validated fine-tuning job' names a verb and resource, so the basic action is clear, and it reads as distinct from siblings like cancel_fine_tuning_job. However it is nearly a restatement of the title with the single qualifier 'validated' added, and it never distinguishes itself from create_fine_tuning_job, which an agent must call first.

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 guidance on when to use this versus create_fine_tuning_job or when not to call it (e.g. job already running). The precondition that the job must be in a 'validated' state is only hinted at by one adjective, leaving the agent to infer the required workflow.

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