Start stage

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

Annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds the specific behavioral outcome (status becomes ACTIVE) but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or any requirements. With annotations present, this is adequate but not enriched.

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, clear sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple state-change tool.

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, the description plus schema and annotations are nearly sufficient. However, it lacks any note about the relationship to 'reopen' or 'complete', which would improve contextual completeness in a toolset with overlapping state transitions.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Set stage status to ACTIVE') with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like reopen_board_stage, which may also set a stage to ACTIVE, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied by the description: use when you want to activate a stage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., reopen vs start), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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