studio_start

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the run is 'durable' and that the tool itself performs no testing, which is genuinely useful behavioral framing, but it says nothing about side effects, persistence scope, or whether the call blocks.

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?

Two tight sentences with the main action front-loaded and the scope caveat immediately after. No filler, though the second sentence is more workflow advice than tool definition.

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?

For a three-required-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unspecified — the meaning of target, what a run produces, and how it relates to sibling studio tools are all absent.

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% for all three required parameters (root, title, target), and the description does not compensate — only 'explicitly selected local project' loosely gestures at root, while title and target are entirely unexplained. The agent cannot determine what target should contain.

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 gives a clear verb+resource — 'Create a durable testing run' — and adds a useful negative qualifier ('this tool does not test the app itself'). However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings like studio_open, studio_snapshot, or studio_update, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It implies a precondition ('an explicitly selected local project') and a workflow expectation (the coding agent must perform checks and report observations), but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names an alternative tool among the many studio_* siblings.

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