paperclip_wake_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Wake/trigger an agent to start working' states the outcome but does not disclose whether the action is idempotent, what happens if the agent is already active, whether it is asynchronous, or what response the caller gets. This is a minimal outcome statement, not behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and purpose immediately, and every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with a well-described schema, the overview is minimally adequate. However, there is no mention of the return value, preconditions, or edge-case behavior, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema already describes agentId as 'ID of the agent to wake' and covers 100% of parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('wake/trigger') and resource ('an agent'), and states the intended outcome ('start working on its assigned issues'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like paperclip_pause_agent, paperclip_get_agent, and paperclip_update_agent.

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 it is used when an agent should begin working, and the sibling paperclip_pause_agent suggests it is the inverse of pause. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention preconditions like the agent needing to already exist or be in a paused state.

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