start_negotiation

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

The description discloses the instant response and possible outcomes, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., state changes, reversibility) and the negotiation process after the call. With no annotations, more behavioral context is needed.

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?

Concise: two sentences plus a tip, with no redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and additional info is efficiently added.

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?

Missing crucial context: no output schema, so return format or negotiation ID is not hinted. Does not explain handling of multiple offers or the negotiation lifecycle. Incomplete for an agent to fully use the tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a useful tip on target price but does not significantly enhance understanding of other parameters like volume or max_rounds 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 clearly states the tool initiates a price negotiation on offers, and details the instant responses (accept, counter-offer, decline). 'Start' distinguishes it from sibling tools like accept_deal or counter_offer, which are for responding to negotiations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The tip about opening price is strategic but does not address prerequisites, when to avoid, or how it compares to related tools like counter_offer or accept_deal.

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