ncloud_sourcebuild_start_build

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety traits. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the build runs asynchronously, whether it can fail due to concurrent builds, or what side effects occur beyond starting. No contradiction exists, but the description contributes nothing beyond the annotation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Although the tool is simple and the schema covers the parameter, the description lacks essential context such as when to use it, how it relates to cancel_build or get_build_history, and what the agent should expect (e.g., asynchronous execution). The description is too minimal for a complete operational understanding.

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?

The input schema covers the only parameter (projectId) with a clear description 'Project ID to build' (100% schema coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Start a build for a SourceBuild project' uses a specific verb ('Start') and clearly identifies the resource (build) and scope (SourceBuild project). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ncloud_sourcebuild_cancel_build (which cancels) and ncloud_sourcebuild_get_build_history (which reads).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, whether a project must exist, or contrast with cancel_build or get_build_history. The agent receives no context for selection.

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