begin_saga

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

The description adds only 'durable' and 'transactional' as behavioral traits, but with no annotations, it carries the full burden of transparency. It does not disclose return behavior, whether a saga ID is produced, idempotency, required permissions, or side effects of starting a workflow.

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 one short sentence with no filler or repetition. 'Durable' and 'transactional' add meaningful context, and the key action is front-loaded.

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?

The definition is too sparse given the lack of an output schema and annotations. It does not mention what the tool returns (likely a saga identifier) or how it fits into the broader saga lifecycle among many sibling tools. An agent could invoke it but would not know how to use the result or what to do next.

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?

The description says nothing about the metadata parameter, and the input schema only provides the property name 'metadata' with no semantics. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description was required to compensate, but it does not, leaving an agent without guidance on how to populate the optional metadata object.

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 states a specific verb ('Start') and a specific resource ('a durable transactional workflow'), which clearly identifies the tool's core purpose. The name 'begin_saga' plus the lifecycle siblings such as plan_saga_step, execute_saga_step, and commit_saga make the distinction obvious: this is the initiating action.

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 implies that this tool should be used to start a durable workflow, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like plan_saga_step or execute_saga_step. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or sequencing guidance such as 'call this before planning steps.'

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