Go live

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses real consequences the annotations cannot express: teammates see what you're working on and which files you touch, and their messages are injected between steps. That is meaningful disclosure of side effects and social visibility. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The final clause about listing who else is live is secondary information that could arguably live in a return-value note, but it is not wasteful.

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 an all-optional, two-parameter state-changing tool, the description covers the effect on teammates and hints at the return content ('lists who else is live'). With no output schema and no annotations explaining output, the response shape is only partially covered, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 100%, so both 'title' and 'autonomy' are already documented in the schema, including the important caveat about only setting autonomy=true when explicitly requested. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the schema-carries-it baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Start working live in this repo') and describes the resulting state change — activity visible to teammates and messages delivered between steps. It is clearly distinct from stop_live/update_live, though the trailing 'Lists who else is live here' blurs it slightly with live_status.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the entry point for going into a live session in a repo. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to the near-duplicate sibling live_status for reading peer state.

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