zelinqa_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses idempotent-by-name semantics (reuse returns current state, not a new session). However it says nothing about error behavior for invalid names, auth requirements, or side effects of creating a conversation.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the non-obvious reuse behavior second. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers both start and recover paths plus question retrieval. The only real gap is the unresolved overlap with zelinqa_next_question.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already covers uniqueness, name-vs-session-ID, and the no-personal-data constraint. The description reinforces the naming concept ('named conversation') but adds little beyond what the schema documents.

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 pair: start or recover a named conversation, then return its first/pending question. It is clear on its own, but it never names zelinqa_next_question, the sibling whose job is fetching subsequent questions, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

Gives clear context for use (begin or resume a conversation) and an important reuse rule: a repeated name resumes state rather than creating a new session. It stops short of explicitly saying when to prefer zelinqa_next_question or other siblings.

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