Start LIVE

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses a precondition (confirm:true) and a safety condition, but does not explain what happens if the condition fails, what the side effects are, or what 'safe' means. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the critical constraints. Every word is necessary with no fluff or repetition.

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 potentially impactful mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter. The description is too sparse to fully inform the agent: it does not explain what 'safe' means, what the tool actually does beyond the name, or the consequences of starting live. More context is needed for safe and correct use.

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 input schema provides a thorough description for the confirm parameter ('Must be exactly true to authorize the LIVE state change'). The tool description merely repeats this ('only with confirm:true'), adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates the tool is for starting LIVE, with a specific precondition (confirm:true) and safety requirement. It distinguishes from the sibling tool studio_stop_live by the opposite action, though it does not explicitly restate the full purpose beyond the name and title.

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 the tool should only be used when the readable state is safe and confirmation is provided, but it does not explicitly direct the agent to check studio_get_status or mention when not to use it (e.g., if already live). The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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