start_host_run

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by noting the run must be 'durable' and 'prepared', and that the tool returns the first stage, implying a multi-stage or asynchronous process. It does not contradict annotations and enriches understanding of side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without any redundant words or clutter.

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?

The description covers the core action but leaves significant gaps: parameter semantics (especially 'expected_revision'), prerequisites, and usage context relative to sibling tools. The output schema exists, so return details are not needed, but other context is still missing.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention 'run_id' or 'expected_revision' at all. 'expected_revision' is particularly ambiguous (likely an optimistic locking check) and goes unexplained.

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 ('Start'), the resource ('host run'), and the return value ('its first stage'). It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'prepared', which indicates this tool is for starting an already-prepared run, not creating or preparing one.

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 a prerequisite ('prepared') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prepare_host_run' or 'create_host_run'. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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