ffv2_worker_start

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by saying the worker is 'resource-guarded' and 'sequential', but it never explains what the guard does, what happens when the guard trips, or whether repeated starts are safe given idempotentHint=false.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded, which is good. But it packs two distinct operations into one clause and mixes languages, so the second half reads as noise rather than useful structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the definition still omits the meaning of its only parameter and any indication of what starting the worker implies for queued jobs. For a non-idempotent mutation tool, that leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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% and the single parameter ignore_system_memory is never mentioned in the description, so an agent gets no guidance on what it toggles or when to set it. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 names a verb ('start') and a resource ('worker') scoped to 'user-requested queued media jobs', which is more specific than the bare tool name. However, 'resource-guarded sequential worker' is internal jargon that an agent cannot decode, and the trailing 'status poll করুন' describes a second action that belongs to a sibling tool, muddying what this tool actually does.

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 statement of when to call this versus ffv2_submit, ffv2_plan, or ffv2_job_status, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The mention of polling status implies a follow-up step but never names ffv2_job_status, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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