whale_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two possible response shapes ({host, access, remaining_s} vs {slots_full, detail}), which hints at success and capacity-failure paths, but says nothing about auth requirements, what happens to an already-running instance, or instance lifetime.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a bracketed input clarification and a compact return summary. No filler; every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-shape restatement is not strictly required. For a state-changing 'start' operation with no annotations, the description omits prerequisites, idempotency/lifetime behavior, and slot-limit semantics, leaving gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. The '(id or name)' clause usefully tells the agent the challenge parameter accepts either an identifier or a name, which the bare string schema does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('dynamic instance for a challenge') with a clear parenthetical on the input form. It is easily distinguished from whale_list and whale_stop by name and action, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 on when to use this versus whale_list or whale_stop, no prerequisites (e.g. challenge must exist, must be dynamic, slot availability), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the workflow.

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