n2_work_start

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the schema — that invoking it writes the agent into 'activeWork' on the soul-board, i.e. it is a persistent state mutation — but it says nothing about re-invocation when a sequence is already active, error conditions, or what the registration affects downstream.

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 action and followed by the side effect; no wasted clauses. 'soul-board' is internal jargon that costs a little comprehension for an outside caller.

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 state-mutating lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must cover behavior and results — it does not say what is returned, whether the sequence has an ID, or how this pairs with n2_work_end or n2_work_log. For a session-opening primitive in a 28-tool family, that leaves the agent guessing about the follow-up contract.

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%, with all three required parameters (agent, project, task) individually documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, constraint, or example detail beyond that, but nothing is missing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a work sequence') and adds the concrete mechanism ('Registers agent in activeWork on soul-board'), which separates it from n2_work_end and n2_work_sessions by implication. It does not explicitly name a sibling or a boundary condition, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives in a crowded family (n2_work_claim, n2_work_log, n2_work_end, n2_work_sessions). The agent must infer that this is the entry point of a work sequence purely from the word 'Start'.

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