start_capability_setup

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnly=false, and destructive=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond this, such as the operation being 'detached', returning a 'durable operation ID', and that it creates 'owned work' that can be cleaned up via cancel_capability_setup. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, idempotency usage, and follow-up workflow. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is well-covered by annotations and output schema. The description explains the detached nature, durable ID, and polling/cancel flow, which is sufficient for a start-operation tool. It could mention prerequisites like listing capabilities first, but the adapter description already hints at that by referencing list_capabilities.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for idempotency_key by explaining its reconnect use-case, which goes beyond the schema's 'Stable key for replaying this exact request.' For adapters, it references list_capabilities as the source, reinforcing the enum values without repeating them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start detached capability provisioning and return its durable operation ID.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_capability_setup (poll status) and cancel_capability_setup (cleanup), which are explicitly mentioned.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use the same idempotency key to reconnect after a lost request' explains how to handle connectivity issues. It also directs the agent to 'Poll get_capability_setup' and 'cancel_capability_setup requests cleanup', giving clear follow-up actions and alternative tools.

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