create_butler_by_butler_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint, which implies a state-changing operation but is consistent with annotations. It doesn't disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens on success/failure, but the annotations cover the basic safety profile. No contradiction.

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 very short and front-loads the core action. The endpoint line is useful. However, the 'Args' section is redundant with the schema and could be removed or expanded. Overall, it's concise and structured acceptably.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema details, and minimal annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a Butler task is, how to discover valid task names, what the response contains, or any side effects. The sibling list includes create_butler and list_butler, but the description doesn't help an agent choose among them.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'butler_task: The task name', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type/title. It doesn't explain what a valid task name looks like, where to find available tasks, or any format constraints. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('a single Butler task'), and includes the HTTP endpoint POST /butler/{butlerTask}. It clearly identifies the action and resource, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling create_butler or list_butler. The name itself is somewhat redundant, but the description adds enough clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_butler or list_butler. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The only usage hint is the endpoint and the parameter, which is minimal.

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