start_training_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two traits: it performs a mutation (build and start) and auto-detects model type from train_config structure. It omits permissions/auth needs, whether the workflow runs asynchronously, failure behavior, and reversibility, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no wasted wording. The auto-detection and prerequisite notes each add information rather than padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the agent gets back (e.g., a workflow ID) and whether execution is asynchronous. It covers the input-side prerequisite but leaves the outcome and lifecycle underspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds modest value by clarifying that train_config is a cached config whose structure drives model-type detection, but no format or syntax detail beyond the 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?

States a specific compound verb (build and start) and resource (training workflow), which clearly separates it from the sibling start_generation_workflow and the obtain_* tools. It does not explicitly name and contrast the closest sibling, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly gives the prerequisite sequence: 'Use this after obtaining train_config_id from obtain_train_config', naming the dependency tool. However, it offers no exclusions or conditions for when NOT to use it versus starting a generation workflow.

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