start_job

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it queues the job, starts its GPU queue, and resumes from the last checkpoint when available.

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 two tightly written sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no wasted text. The checkpoint-resume condition is concise and useful.

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 return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits important context such as the expected job identifier and whether a job must already exist or be created via create_job first.

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% for the sole required parameter 'job', and the description only mentions 'a job' without clarifying whether this is a job ID, name, or other identifier. It does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses specific verbs ('Queue', 'start') and resources ('job', 'GPU queue') and states the resume-from-checkpoint behavior. It is clear on its own, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like create_job or trigger.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Queue a job and start its GPU queue' and the checkpoint-resume note, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives such as create_job or trigger.

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