start_analysis_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful async semantics ('persistent, background job'), implying the caller must poll for results, but it never explains what 'bounded' means, whether the job is cancellable, or how the returned job handle is used for retrieval.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the object of the action appears immediately. It is perhaps too terse for the amount of unstated behavior, but it wastes nothing.

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 covers return values, but the definition omits the job lifecycle (retrieve via get_analysis_job, cancel via cancel_analysis_job) and any usage context, which is a substantial gap for a start-job mutation with zero annotation support.

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 must compensate for two undocumented parameters. 'Analysis or review job' faintly hints at the should_review flag, but the required 'pgn' parameter is never explained (format, size, source), leaving the most important input ambiguous.

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 (start) and resource (analysis/review job), and the qualifiers 'bounded, persistent, background' begin to distinguish it from the sibling start_progressive_analysis. However, it never names an alternative, so an agent must infer the split between the two job starters.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. a parsed game or valid PGN), and no pointer to the sibling tools get_analysis_job / cancel_analysis_job that the caller will obviously need next. The description gives no selection criteria among the many analysis siblings.

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