Start an engagement

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool initializes and persists ADM phase progress and that overwrite=true replaces an existing engagement, which is important destructive behavior. However, it doesn't clarify whether the tool creates a new engagement or modifies an existing one, what side effects occur, or how it differs from create_engagement/update_engagement.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action and the critical overwrite condition. It contains no filler, though the bilingual repetition is a minor inefficiency that doesn't detract much.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief to be fully contextual. It leaves key ambiguities: whether an engagement must already exist, what happens if overwrite is not set, what the return value is, and how this tool relates to create_engagement and update_engagement. An agent may not be able to call it correctly without additional inference.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by specifying when overwrite=true is required ('if there is an existing engagement'), which is not explicitly stated in the parameter description. It also implicitly connects the currentPhase parameter to the 'initialize ADM phase progress' behavior.

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 clearly states specific actions: start an engagement, initialize ADM phase progress, and persist it. It also adds the overwrite behavior for existing engagements. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like create_engagement or update_engagement, leaving some room for ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as create_engagement or update_engagement. It does mention that overwrite=true is needed for existing engagements, which is a partial usage condition, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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