layerfs_operator_process_start

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

Annotations already flag destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that the process is background and supervised, that the returned id must be retained, and that filesystem changes must be committed explicitly — a non-obvious behavioral consequence. It stops short of saying what the commit path is or what the start call returns.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler — the action leads and the operational caveats follow. Nothing extraneous, though it is arguably under-packed for the parameter complexity.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with a nested parameter object and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained: how ws/sandbox/image combine, what form the process id takes, and how commits relate to the running process.

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 there is a nested 'ws' object with sandbox, path, and image fields plus a 'command' string. The description says nothing about any of these, leaving the agent to infer what a sandbox vs. path vs. image means from field names alone.

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+resource: 'Start a supervised background command in a Workspace.' An agent can distinguish it from foreground execution, though the description never names the obvious sibling (layerfs_workspace_exec) or process_list/process_cancel.

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?

'Keep the returned process id' implies a follow-up with process_list/process_cancel but never states when to prefer this over layerfs_workspace_exec. Usage context is implied rather than declared, and no exclusions are given.

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