nina_sequence_start

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

The description explains that skip_validation skips pre-flight checks, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose what happens on validation failure, whether the sequence runs asynchronously, or if the tool can be called when a sequence is already running.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: one for the tool purpose and one for the parameter. No extraneous text.

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?

While the description covers the tool's action and the sole parameter, it omits important context: that a sequence must be loaded first, the tool's return value or side effects, and error scenarios. For a control action like starting a sequence, these details are valuable.

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 provides a full, clear explanation of the skip_validation parameter, including its purpose and recommended usage. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool starts the currently loaded Advanced Sequence. This verb+resource formulation distinguishes it from sibling tools like nina_sequence_stop or nina_sequence_load_by_name.

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 guidance for the skip_validation parameter ('Leave False unless you have a good reason'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like a sequence must be loaded.

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