start_capability_setup

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful lifecycle context beyond those: the operation is 'detached', returns a 'durable operation ID', and owns work that cancel_capability_setup will clean up. It makes the operational expectations clear without contradicting 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?

Three concise sentences with the core purpose in the first sentence and no filler. Each sentence adds essential operational information: starting and returning ID, idempotency reconnection, and how to monitor/cleanup.

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 detached provisioning tool with an output schema and idempotency semantics, the description covers the start, reconnect, progressmonitoring, and cancellation path. It also naturally routes to the correct siblings without requiring the agent to guess. The return value ('durable operation ID') is stated, so the tool can be invoked and followed up correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for adapters, idempotency_key, and memray_reader_version, so the schema carries most of the parameter burden. The description adds only the practical use of the idempotency_key for reconnecting after a lost request, which is helpful but does not significantly expand parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Start'), a resource ('capability provisioning'), and a key outcome ('return its durable operation ID'). It clearly distinguishes this launch operation from the sibling polling and cancellation tools (get_capability_setup, cancel_cability_setup).

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 gives explicit, actionable usage guidance: use the same idempotency key to reconnect after a lost request, poll get_capability_setup for progress phases, and use cancel_capability_setup for cleanup. This tells an agent exactly how to use the tool and what to do next.

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