mirrored_database_start_mirroring

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose whether mirroring starts asynchronously, whether the operation is idempotent, what prerequisites exist, or how to verify the result via a status tool.

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 short sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It is structurally efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of substantive 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?

For a state-changing tool with no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what starting mirroring entails, whether the call returns immediately, or that mirrored_database_get_mirroring_status should be used to track progress. The presence of related status/stop tools makes this omission more significant.

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%, with both parameters ('workspaceId' and 'mirroredDatabaseId') documented at a basic level. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already carries the burden adequately, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Start mirroring for a mirrored database' simply restates the tool name 'mirrored_database_start_mirroring' in natural language. It is a tautology and adds no clarifying detail about scope, behavior, or how it differs from related mirrored_database tools.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mirrored_database_stop_mirroring or mirrored_database_get_mirroring_status. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.

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