msp360_start_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the action and does not disclose whether the run is asynchronous, whether it starts immediately, what effects it has on existing runs, or whether any computer/agent prerequisites apply.

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 clear sentence with no filler and the main action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though additional behavioral context would improve it without making it bloated.

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?

With fully documented parameters and a low-complexity schema, the description is minimally adequate for invoking the tool. However, the absence of output schema, annotations, and behavioral details means the agent cannot predict the result, errors, or whether the operation is asynchronous.

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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema coverage is 100%, so no critical gap exists.

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 names a specific verb ('Start') and a precise target ('backup run' for 'a plan' on 'a computer'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools and from stop_plan, even without explicitly naming alternatives.

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 intended use is implied by the action: start a backup run for a plan on a computer. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or contrast with stop_plan is provided, leaving some inference to the agent.

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