start_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the auto-lookup behavior, strategy semantics, and conditional parameter requirements, which is valuable. However, it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., what happens if process_name is not found), permissions required, or whether the call returns a job ID or waits. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 somewhat long but earns its length by covering 7 parameters and strategy logic in a structured way. It front-loads the core purpose and then organizes details into strategy options and an args list. Not as tight as the exemplar, but appropriate for the 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?

Given 7 parameters, zero schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is largely complete for invoking the tool correctly. It explains parameter semantics, default behavior, and conditional requirements. It does not cover return values, but the output schema handles that. Minor gaps like error handling and prerequisites are not addressed, so it's not a perfect 5.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each parameter is explained, including the relationship between release_key and process_name, the exact meaning of each strategy option, and when robot_ids or jobs_count are required. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a new execution of a process (release) in a folder.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_jobs, get_job, or stop_job, which are read or control operations. It also mentions the key inputs (process_name, folder_name) that tie it to get_orchestrator_summary.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, instructing to provide process_name and folder_name, with release_key auto-resolved. It also explains the strategy options and their required parameters. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparisons to alternatives beyond the reference to get_orchestrator_summary, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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