start_live_activity

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

Beyond annotations, it discloses that this is mutating, requires a specific write-enable environment variable, and has not been live-validated. That is useful operational context for a write tool, though it does not describe side effects or confirmation requirements.

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 short and front-loads the endpoint and mutation warning. It has minor redundancy between 'Not live-validated' and 'Mutation behavior has not been live-tested', but is otherwise efficient.

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 explained, and annotations cover safety hints. However, for a four-parameter mutating endpoint with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete on query/confirm_destructive semantics and usage context.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It documents 'flight_id' and points to get_schema('StartLiveActivityRequest') for payload, but leaves the 'query' and 'confirm_destructive' parameters unexplained.

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 identifies a specific HTTP action and resource: POST /v1/flight/{flight_id}/liveActivity, and the name makes the intended operation fairly clear. It does not explain what a 'live activity' is or differentiate from siblings, but no sibling is obviously confusable.

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 states a prerequisite (FLIGHTY_ALLOW_WRITES=true) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. The only usage constraint is the write-mode gate.

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