start_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that jobs run as bounded background jobs with returned IDs queryable and cancellable through unified job tools. However, it does not explain side effects, eligibility criteria, deadline behavior, or idempotency implications.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds useful scoping information about Motion and SDG tools without unnecessary bloat. It could include a bit more operational detail without hurting conciseness.

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?

Even with an output schema present, an agent lacks critical invocation details: what command_type values are eligible, what 'asset or sensor command' means, and how each parameter affects execution. The background-job lifecycle is only partially explained, leaving significant gaps for a generic launcher tool.

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, but it provides no parameter-level guidance. command_type is required but its allowed values are never stated, and params, command_id, deadline_ms, and idempotency_key are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('eligible asset or sensor command as a bounded background job'), and it distinguishes itself from Motion and SDG typed starts. However, 'eligible' and 'asset' are left undefined, preventing a perfect score.

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?

It explicitly states that Motion and SDG starts retain their typed tools, signaling the agent to use specialized tools for those cases, while noting their returned IDs can still be managed through unified job tools. It does not list exact eligible command types or name the specific alternative tools to use.

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