start_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the synchronous vs. immediate-return distinction, the constraint that limit_batches only works in foreground, and that if_not_running turns a start into a no-op instead of an error. This is strong behavioral disclosure, though it does not cover potential failure modes or permissions.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a concise parameter list. Every line adds information, and the most important behavior is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema and the sibling set, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly contrasting with test_pipeline or pipeline_status, but for this tool's complexity it is quite sufficient.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains all five parameters, including the database default, the meaning of foreground, the conditional validity of limit_batches, and the effect of if_not_running. This goes well beyond the bare schema types.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Start a pipeline so it begins (or resumes) loading data.' This clearly distinguishes start_pipeline from siblings like stop_pipeline, create_pipeline, or pipeline_status, and even adds the nuance that starting can resume an existing pipeline.

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 gives practical usage context, noting that foreground mode is 'Useful for a one-off load or for testing a pipeline end to end.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it misses the top tier, but the usage context is clear.

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