start_service_case_resolution

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

The description adds a minimal amount of behavioral context beyond the annotations: it implies a write operation ('Start') and references a 'quarantined' state, but it does not explain side effects, required approvals, or what 'exact typed candidate' means. It does not contradict the annotations, but it is largely silent on behavior.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy or extraneous information. It is well-structured and immediately understandable in terms of its basic action.

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 complexity of the nested request object with many required fields, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'Service loop' is, what a 'candidate' represents, or the purpose of the many hashes and references. An agent would have no idea how to construct a valid request from this description alone.

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 description provides no information about the parameters (company_ref, project_ref, request) or their semantics. The phrase 'exact typed candidate' hints at the request structure but does not clarify any of the three parameters or the nested fields. With 0% schema coverage in the description, it fails to add meaning beyond the input schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Start') and the resource ('one quarantined Service loop'), with a qualifier ('from an exact typed candidate') that adds specificity. It is not tautological and gives a reasonable sense of what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar 'start' tools like start_operating_loop.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is purely a statement of action with no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferable to sibling tools.

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