start-training

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, required permissions, or how it interacts with other training resources. The statement is purely functional with no behavioral detail.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing context; it is appropriately structured but under-specified.

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 likely orchestrates a complex process (starting a training run) with a free-form payload, the description is highly incomplete. It omits the relationship to training definitions, precheck requirements, and expected outcome, leaving the agent without sufficient context.

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% for the single 'payload' parameter, which already has a description ('Training run configuration'), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter semantics, leaving the payload's structure entirely unspecified beyond the generic schema text.

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 'Start a training run' uses the specific verb 'start' and identifies the resource 'training run', making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'start-precheck' or relate it to 'create-training-definition', leaving potential ambiguity about what a 'training run' entails.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., an existing training definition or precheck status), or when to prefer alternatives like 'start-precheck'. The description only states the action without any context.

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