start_sdg_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior: the tool can preview rather than start, and the actual start is asynchronous. However, it does not explain side effects, whether an existing configured job is required, or what happens on preview versus start.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, front-loading the preview-versus-async distinction. It is appropriately short, though the terseness contributes to missing behavioral and usage context.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level parameter descriptions, yet the description only covers the preview/async start concept. It omits job lifecycle expectations, idempotency behavior, command_id usage, and relationship to other SDG job tools. Even with an output schema present, this is insufficient context for correct invocation.

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%, and the description mentions only the preview concept. It does not clarify semantics for 'job_id', 'command_id', or 'idempotency_key'. The parameter names provide some hints, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema-level documentation.

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 a distinct resource ('one configured SDG job'), and clarifies that the action can be a preview or an asynchronous start. This separates it from generic job tools like 'start_job' and from creation/status tools in the same family, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as 'create_sdg_job', 'get_sdg_job_status', or 'start_job'. It implies the job must already be configured but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or routing conditions.

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