Start workflow step

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining what idempotentHint means in practice: it either starts a new attempt or returns the existing Job. This clarifies the side-effect profile and aligns with the openWorldHint annotation, though it does not elaborate on external side effects or authentication requirements.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and the alternative return value, making it highly efficient. No unnecessary words or clauses.

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?

Given the tool has 3 required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, nor does it provide any guidance on when to choose this over siblings. Although an output schema exists, the missing parameter semantics and usage guidance leave the description inadequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters, but it does not mention workflow_id, step_id, or attempt at all. The schema only provides titles, which are insufficient. The description fails to add any meaning to the parameters.

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 'Start' and identifies the resource 'Step attempt', and adds the key behavior 'or return its existing Job'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_codex_job which deal with codex jobs, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (to start a step attempt or retrieve an existing job) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no exclusions or comparison against siblings, so usage context is only implied.

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