Training Start

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true), so the description adds genuinely new context: the operation 'Spends credits' and returns a run ID 'promptly,' signaling async, billable execution. This cost/async disclosure is valuable beyond the structured fields, though credit magnitude and failure behavior are unstated.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the cost warning is appended efficiently. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency profile. Still, for a billable mutation tool the description leaves parameter meaning and what counts as a 'validated plan' undefined, so it is only minimally 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the two parameters. It never explains plan_id or idempotency_key, leaving the idempotency contract to be inferred from the annotation alone. With both params undocumented, the description fails to compensate.

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 and resource: 'Submit a validated plan to Docket and return its run ID.' An agent can tell it launches a training run from a plan. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like recipe_start or training_resume, but the 'validated plan' scoping is fairly clear.

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?

Implies the prerequisite that the plan must already be validated, which nudges the agent toward training_plan first. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when/when-not guidance versus training_resume, recipe_start, or train_sft.

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