Train Distill

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose one critical behavior: 'Spends credits.' That's genuinely useful cost context, which pushes it above a 1. But for a training job with a heavy nested schema, checkpointing, background execution, and evaluation options, the description says nothing about runtime, whether it blocks, how to monitor, what gets created, or what permission/account state is required.

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?

Extremely tight: two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by the cost disclosure. Nothing is wasted.

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 high-complexity training tool with nested objects, checkpointing, evaluation, and background execution, the description is drastically incomplete. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the agent still lacks any context on prerequisites, behavior, monitoring, or parameter meaning.

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%, and the description provides zero parameter guidance. For a nested schema with dozens of fields across training/distillation/checkpointing blocks, this is a severe gap. The description doesn't even hint at the required 'request' object structure or the teacher/student fields.

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+resource (distillation training) and mentions on-policy/off-policy modes, which are the field's key axes. But it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like train_sft, train_dpo, train_rl beyond being distillation specifically. The purpose is decipherable but requires the reader to already know what 'distillation' means in this context.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives mentioned. The agent must infer that this is for teacher/student distillation from the name alone, and gets no guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling training tools.

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