start_job

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral context such as whether the call is asynchronous, side effects, error conditions, or authentication requirements. Only parameter explanations are given.

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 concise and structured with an 'Args' section. It is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. Minor redundancy could be avoided, but overall efficient.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete: it does not mention return values (e.g., job ID), error handling, or execution behavior. A job-starting tool expects more context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning: 'process_key' is explained as ReleaseKey, and optionality of other parameters is stated. However, details like valid formats for 'input_arguments' or how 'robot_ids' are used are missing.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start a job for a UiPath process.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'stop_job' and 'get_job' by focusing on starting a job.

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 provides implicit guidance on when to use optional parameters (e.g., 'If omitted, a modern dynamic allocation runs one job'), but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives.

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