start_operating_loop

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: quarantined catalog entries fail closed, meaning the admission request is denied by default for quarantined entries. This informs the agent that the call can fail for a quarantine reason and that a successful admission is not guaranteed. However, it does not describe what happens on success, whether admission is asynchronous, or what side effects admission triggers.

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 terse sentence with the primary action front-loaded ('Request loop admission') followed by the key failure condition. Every word earns its place and there is no filler. The slight deduction is for the jargon term 'fail closed', which is compact but may not be immediately interpretable to all agents, and the sentence packs little beyond that one action and one rule.

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 values are covered, and annotations cover idempotency and destructiveness. But for correct invocation of a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is under-specified: parameter semantics are entirely absent, the admission flow (what admission means, what happens after a successful or failed request) is unexplained, and there is no guidance distinguishing this from the operating-loop sibling tools. The fail-closed rule is the only operational context present.

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 carries the full burden for explaining parameters, and it adds nothing about loop_ref, company_ref, or project_ref. All three are required strings with opaque titles; an agent can guess that loop_ref identifies the loop and company_ref/project_ref provide scoping context, but nothing in the description confirms their roles or formats. With 0% coverage and zero parameter elaboration in the description, this is a significant gap.

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: 'Request loop admission' — this tool requests entry into an operating loop, which matches the name start_operating_loop. The added clause 'quarantined catalog entries fail closed' gives a meaningful behavioral qualifier. It does not explicitly name sibling tools (e.g., cancel_operating_loop, get_operating_loop_status), so the differentiation from siblings is left to inference, though the action is distinct enough from the get/cancel/describe siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling family (find_operating_loops, describe_operating_loop, get_operating_loop_status, get_operating_loop_next_action, cancel_operating_loop) clearly implies a lifecycle where 'start' is the entry point, but the description never states this. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing hints are provided; the only implied usage is that admission must be requested before operating a loop.

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