start_asset_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does explicitly disclose that execution is asynchronous and that the return value is a job id. However, it does not describe side effects, job lifecycle, failure modes, or whether results are subsequently fetched via get_asset_job_status, leaving a significant portion of behavior undisclosed.

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 that front-loads the action, the async nature, and the return value with no filler or repetition. The qualifier 'compact' is vague but not wasteful, and there is no structural bloat.

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 job-submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits how to monitor or cancel the job, what distinguishes this from sibling batch tools, and what 'compact' implies about job structure or limits. The schema provides parameter structure, but the description does not supply the surrounding workflow context an agent needs to select and use the tool confidently.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the word 'batch', which hints at the array-shaped jobs parameter. It does not explain that each job item needs a recipe and input_filenames, or what the recipe enum values produce, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of docs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start'), a resource ('batch asset job'), and names the key result (job id). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not contrast with similarly named siblings such as batch_asset_job or run_asset_recipe, and the qualifier 'compact' is left unexplained.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over batch_asset_job, run_asset_recipe, or synchronous recipe execution, and no mention of prerequisites or how to combine it with get_asset_job_status/cancel_asset_job. The only implied context is 'asynchronous', but no when/when-not boundaries are stated.

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