start-prompt-enhancement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses the endpoint, the captcha gate, the action name, and the return shape (`{task_id}`). It stops short of explaining how the captcha should be satisfied, cost implications, or error behavior.

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 brief sentences, front-loads the purpose, then gives the endpoint and return/polling contract without filler. Every clause is useful for invocation or follow-up.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value and the required follow-up call. The main missing piece is how the captcha gate is meant to be handled by the agent.

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 100%, so both `prompt` and `model_type` are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics about valid model types or prompt constraints, matching the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 and resource ("Start a prompt-enhancement task") and explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling by naming `get-prompt-enhancement-task` as the polling counterpart. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear sequencing guidance: call this to start, then poll with `get-prompt-enhancement-task` using the returned `{task_id}`. It does not mention when not to use it or how it relates to `get-prompt-enhancer-cost`, so it falls short of fully explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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