Start Build

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description's only behavioral claim, 'This is a write operation,' merely restates that. It adds nothing about permissions required, whether the build is asynchronous, whether it can conflict with an in-flight build, or what happens if the target is invalid.

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, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence is largely redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, but it costs little and the description is not 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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry more weight. It says nothing about what starting a build returns (e.g. a build ID), whether the operation is async, or how to subsequently track the build via get_build — information an agent would need to use this tool effectively.

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%, and all four parameters (clean, branch, project, buildtarget) are fully documented with defaults in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource ('a new build for a build target'), so the agent knows exactly what action is taken. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like cancel_build or get_build, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the target must exist, must not already be building), and no reference to cancel_build as its counterpart. The agent gets a purpose but no routing context.

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