build_start

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses the mutating nature, SSH execution, duration, and asynchronous behavior. Could mention error handling or permissions but is adequate for a build start tool.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value: mutation flag, explicitness, runtime, polling advice. No redundancy or fluff. Front-loaded with key purpose.

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's simplicity (3 parameters, 2 required), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description fully explains the asynchronous nature and how to track progress, making it complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds the statement that nothing is defaulted, which reinforces but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'MUTATING — start a wlan-ap build', clearly stating the action (start) and resource (wlan-ap build). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning polling with build_status or build_tail.

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?

Explicitly states the build runs over SSH, takes 30-90 minutes, returns immediately, and advises polling with build_status or build_tail for progress. Also notes that all parameters are explicit with no defaults.

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