Start a Clanker turn (non-blocking)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it's non-blocking, returns an id immediately, and explains error handling ('setup errors fail here; runtime errors surface via clanker_wait'). This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The key action is front-loaded, and crucial guidance (polling, error separation) is included concisely. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers the return value ({id}), the polling mechanism (clanker_wait), and error differentiation. While there is no output schema, the return value is stated. It could detail cancellation (via clanker_cancel) or more error scenarios, but given the tool's moderate complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds meaning by explaining that errors related to 'lane' and 'worktree' parameters (unknown backend, worktree creation) surface immediately, providing error-handling context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Spawn/handshake a Clanker and start a prompt turn, returning {id} immediately.' It uses specific verbs ('start', 'spawn') and resource ('Clanker'), and differentiates from siblings like clanker_wait by highlighting the non-blocking nature and immediate return.

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 explicitly tells the user to 'Poll progress with clanker_wait(id)' and distinguishes setup errors from runtime errors, guiding the agent to use this tool for initiating tasks and clanker_wait for monitoring. It provides clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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