Start contest

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful state effect of opening betting, but omits that repeated calls are safe (idempotentHint) and what happens on an already-started or closed contest.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the consequence trailing. Nothing is wasted and nothing is padded.

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 simple state-transition tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the essential effect. The only minor gap is lifecycle interaction with contests_close and behavior on already-started contests, which annotations partially mitigate.

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%, so both contestId and channel are already documented by the schema. The description adds no format, default, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('start') and resource ('contest') plus the downstream effect ('so viewers can place bets'), which distinguishes it from contests_create and contests_close in the sibling set. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the lifecycle role is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'a created contest' implies the prerequisite that a contest must already exist, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of contests_close as the inverse, and no note on what happens if the contest is already running.

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