plan

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: one-shot launch semantics, that changed inputs invalidate the preview, and that this is a coordinator decision within existing authorization rather than a new permission. It says nothing about failure modes, error behavior, or what the preview returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the workflow, and every sentence carries information. The permission sentence is wordy and the "Jev contradictions" phrase adds density without clarity, but nothing is redundant.

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 3-parameter, unaudited tool with no output schema, the description covers the preview-to-launch lifecycle and permission scope reasonably well. It is still incomplete on the tasks payload structure and on what the preview or launch returns, which matter for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate and it only partly does. It explains launch and plan_id (one-shot start of the unchanged plan) and mentions depends_on inside tasks, but the tasks array itself, its item shape, and how to structure entries are left entirely undocumented.

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 and resource ("Preview tasks before workers start") and calls out that it also launches with launch=True plus plan_id. It distinguishes itself from the legacy start/start_many siblings, though the jargon ("Jev contradictions") is opaque without prior context.

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?

Gives a clear workflow: preview first, read the facts, then launch with plan_id once, and re-preview if inputs change. It notes legacy start/start_many remain available but does not say when to prefer them over this tool, leaving that selection to inference.

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