start_collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavior: the process runs independently in the background and returns a run_id immediately (non-blocking, asynchronous). It omits what happens on failure, whether concurrent starts are allowed, and any resource or permission implications.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, leading with the action and following with the return value and the path constraint. Efficient, though the trailing constraint reads as an afterthought rather than being grouped with the parameter it governs.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully tells the agent it gets a run_id back, so the return-value burden is covered. However, with no annotations on a process-launching tool, more behavioral context (side effects, failure handling, relationship to get_run_status/resume_run) would be needed for full completeness.

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 schema text ('Source Config', string) is uninformative, so the description's constraint that the value must be a source.yaml path inside WebContent is genuinely valuable. It still leaves path format details (absolute vs relative, extension expectations) unstated, so it only partly compensates.

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 effect: start the existing worker as an independent background process. This distinguishes it reasonably well from siblings like create_collection (creates a new one) and resume_run (continues an existing run), though the description's use of 'worker' against a tool named start_collection leaves a slight terminology mismatch.

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 and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'the existing worker' weakly implies the collection must already exist, but the agent is not told how this differs from create_collection or resume_run when deciding which sibling to call.

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