start_crew_run

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

With no annotations, the description correctly carries the behavioral burden: it discloses the internal pipeline (prepare, advisor opinions, peer review, persist synthesis), the SAMPLING_NOT_SUPPORTED failure mode, and duplicate handling via was_duplicate. It stops short of a 5 by omitting auth/permission needs and rate or cost characteristics for what is clearly a mutating, resource-heavy run.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the invocation condition before describing mechanics and edge cases. Slightly jargon-heavy terms ('ConversationalCard', 'Chairman synthesis') add length without much value, but every sentence carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description usefully explains the return (a ConversationalCard) and its notable fields (SAMPLING_NOT_SUPPORTED, was_duplicate). Combined with full schema coverage this is nearly self-sufficient; only the absence of output-shape detail for successful runs leaves a small gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents crew_id, task_id, task_prompt, and token_budget in detail. The description reinforces the task_id idempotency/retry semantics but adds no syntax or format beyond what the schema provides, 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('start a Crews Council run') with the user-facing trigger, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from the related sibling tools get_run/list_runs, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit invocation condition ('when the user wants to start a Crews Council run'), which is clear operative guidance. It names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it lacks the routing detail that would earn a 5.

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