start_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the state change to IN_PROGRESS and the required prerequisite (accepted bid), but does not mention idempotency, error conditions, or side effects beyond the status change.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds essential timing guidance. 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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter, simple state transition) and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and usage. It could be more complete by addressing idempotency or failure behavior, but it is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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. The single parameter jobId is implied by 'a job' in the description, but it is not explicitly explained (e.g., format, source). The meaning is inferable, but the description adds minimal direct parameter detail.

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 ('Mark a job IN_PROGRESS') on a clear resource (job), and positions it within the workflow ('after your bid is accepted, before doing the work'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_bid, submit_work, and cancel_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 clear sequencing context with 'Call after your bid is accepted, before doing the work.' This tells the agent when to invoke it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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