stage_start

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the job is persistent, returns promptly, and that operation IDs should be reused only for identical requests, but it omits side effects, permissions, failure behavior, concurrency implications, and what the start operation actually creates.

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 very short and front-loads the key action and idempotency rule. The stage list is compact and each sentence contributes useful information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The description covers the stage sequence and operation-ID policy, but it leaves key context gaps for a no-annotation start tool, including config_path meaning, sample semantics, and relationship to job/status siblings.

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%, so the description needs to compensate. It adds meaning for stage ordering and sample-applicable stages, and explains operation_id reuse, but config_path remains undocumented and sample is only implied through the stage list.

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 states a specific verb and resource: starting a persistent local job, with the stage workflow named. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as standalone_launch or job_reconcile.

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?

It gives useful context for operation_id reuse and lists the stage order, which implies how to invoke the tool. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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