port_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the job is resumable, the source ROM is preserved, and the tool will not report success before validation. It leaves out what is written to disk under projectRoot, whether an existing project is overwritten, and what the call returns (a job identifier?), which matters for a stateful creation tool.

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 tight sentences with the core action and its guarantees front-loaded and no filler. 'Evidence-driven' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but it still conveys a real behavioral property rather than padding.

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?

For a creation tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the destination of the job, the meaning of profile and confirm, and what a successful call yields. None of that is present, so an agent cannot call this confidently beyond the two required paths.

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% across four parameters, so the schema supplies no meaning at all. The description only indirectly touches romPath via 'preserves the ROM' and says nothing about projectRoot, profile, or the confirm flag, leaving the agent to guess at required inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('resumable, evidence-driven N64-to-PS2 port job'), so an agent immediately knows this initiates a porting job. It does not name the near-siblings (port_project_plan, project_intake, port_status) that could be confused with it, so differentiation is only partial.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as port_project_plan or project_intake. The agent must infer from the word 'Create' that this is the entry point of a workflow.

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