start_detached_capture

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

Annotations cover read/write and idempotency, and the description adds only a vague mention of 'once' and 'reconnect by run_id', which aligns with idempotentHint but does not explain side effects, failure modes, or what destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true) entails. Without annotations, this would be nearly opaque; even with them, the description adds little.

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 short and front-loads a purpose, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. Every word carries weight but does not deliver enough meaning. The structure is acceptable, but the brevity sacrifices clarity.

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?

With a zero-description schema, no parameter explanations, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It does not mention return behavior despite an output schema existing, nor does it clarify the asynchronous lifecycle. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context.

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%, and the tool description does not explain either parameter. 'plan_token' and 'idempotency_key' are required and unnamed in the description, leaving an agent to guess their meaning or format. The description mentions 'run_id' but not how it relates to parameters.

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 includes a verb 'Start' and a resource 'current plan', but 'current plan' is ambiguous and the distinction from sibling execute_capture_plan is not articulated. 'Detached' is only implied via 'without keeping this call open', so an agent could struggle to understand exactly what this tool accomplishes.

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. Siblings like execute_capture_plan, plan_capture, and get_detached_capture exist, but the description provides no criteria for choosing this one. The 'without keeping this call open' hints at a non-blocking pattern but does not state it explicitly.

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