job_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions idempotency and the two start modes, but it does not disclose the effects of wait=true by default, what operation means, timeout behavior, worker_target semantics, or what happens if both plan_id and capability_id are supplied.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the two main invocation paths are stated early. It is appropriately concise, though its density leaves important parameter distinctions unexplained.

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?

Although an output schema exists and need not be explained, this is a nine-parameter action tool with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions. The description covers the core plan/capability choice and idempotency but omits enough behavioral and parameter context that an agent could not confidently use it without inspecting the schema.

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 must compensate for nine undocumented parameters. It clarifies plan_id, capability_id, arguments, and idempotency_key, but leaves wait, operation, engagement_id, worker_target, and timeout_seconds without any semantic explanation.

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 ('Start') and two resource paths: an authorized plan via plan_id or a capability via capability_id + arguments. It distinguishes the two invocation modes clearly, though it does not explicitly differentiate job_start from siblings such as action_prepare or capabilities_search.

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 explains how to choose between starting via plan_id versus capability_id + arguments, which gives implied usage context. However, it does not state when to use job_start versus action_prepare, job_status, or job_cancel, and it provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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