StartFISExperiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses asynchronous behavior ('returns immediately after starting') and that an Exception is raised 'when writes are disabled', which signals a write gate. It omits permissions needed, idempotency/duplicate-start behavior, and what the returned response contains.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded and the returns/raises notes add value, but the Args block largely duplicates the schema descriptions verbatim, so not every line earns its place. Structure is conventional and readable rather than tight.

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 description covers the essential async start behavior and error surface, which is reasonable for a 4-param tool with no annotations or output schema. It still leaves gaps on prerequisites (template existence), permissions, and error semantics, so it is adequate but incomplete.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the 'Name tag' semantics and the run-all/skip-all/stop-on-failure action modes. The description merely restates the same arg list (id, name, tags, action) without adding syntax, constraints, or format detail, so the baseline 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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource ('Starts an AWS FIS experiment') and adds scope ('returns immediately after starting'), which distinguishes it from read siblings like GetFISExperiment and ListFISExperiments. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from CreateFISExperimentTemplate or explain the create-vs-start distinction, so it stops short of a 5.

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 prerequisite (e.g. an existing experiment template ID) and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Starts', which leaves the agent to infer when this is preferable to Get/List/Create operations.

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