Start slicing

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description goes well beyond them by disclosing asynchronous execution, immediate return, the exact response values, the already_valid behavior, and the conflict condition when a slice is already running.

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 compact and well-structured: core behavior first, response semantics second, and follow-up alternatives last. Every sentence provides operational value 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?

For a no-parameter, fire-and-forget tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the call returns, what can go wrong, how to monitor progress, and when to prefer the synchronous sibling. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is complete, so there is no parameter semantics to add. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies because nothing is 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 states a specific action ('Start slicing the current plate') and clearly distinguishes this tool from slice_and_wait by emphasizing background execution and immediate return. It also enumerates the possible replies, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly says to prefer slice_and_wait when finished stats are wanted in one call, and tells the agent to poll get_slice_status or use cancel_slice for follow-up. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings.

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