start_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action ('start conversation') without mentioning side effects, requirements (e.g., whether the human must be available), or what happens upon successful initiation. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a mutating action.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point. However, it is perhaps too terse, lacking the rich detail that would make it genuinely helpful, so it does not earn a 5.

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 that this is a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three required parameters, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the workflow (e.g., what is the subject vs. message), what the return value might be, or any post-conditions. The agent is left with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not clarify parameter formats, relationships, or expected values.

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 tool's purpose: to start a conversation with a human service provider. It uses a specific verb ('start') and resource ('conversation'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like 'send_message' (which implies ongoing conversations) and 'get_conversation'/'list_conversations' (which are read operations).

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 usage (use when you need to initiate a conversation with a human) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. No alternatives are named, so the agent must infer from context.

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