herdr_owned_worker_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool verifies branch/base/HEAD/status digest and ownership leases, reserves a lane, and starts a worker in a no-focus tab without splitting the controller. It does not mention side effects on failure, return values, or whether it's idempotent. The information is helpful but incomplete for a complex operation with 18 required parameters.

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 long, efficient, and front-loads the primary action. It avoids unnecessary fluff and packs a lot of information into a compact structure. No redundancy or waste.

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?

Despite the description's detail, it is not complete for a tool with 19 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It lacks explanation of parameter relationships, required values, error handling, and return format. The prerequisite is mentioned but not described in depth. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional documentation or schema hints.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It mentions key concepts like 'branch/base/HEAD/status digest' and 'control tab' but does not map these to the 19 parameters explicitly. For example, it doesn't explain the purpose of controller_id, controller_lease_id, fence token, or owned_scopes. The description provides high-level workflow context but fails to clarify individual parameter semantics, making it insufficient for an agent to construct correct arguments.

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 clearly states the tool's action: reserve a Git lane, verify its state, then start a leased writer in a dedicated tab. It includes specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes it from list/verify/release siblings by focusing on the start workflow. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, which prevents a 5.

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 a prerequisite ('Durable ticket/spec authority must already have been validated by the coordinator') but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like herdr_owned_worker_release or herdr_owned_worker_verify. The usage context is implied by the action, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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