start_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the conversation runs in the background, returns a conversation_id, and that progress is tracked via polling get_transcript. However, it does not mention any destructive effects, required permissions, or rate limits, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary verbosity. At around 80 words, it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (multi-agent, async, three parameters), the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameters, return value, and how to monitor progress. It could mention that the conversation proceeds until max_rounds is reached or stopped, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides extensive detail for all three parameters: topic, agents (including format and defaults), and max_rounds (including default value). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, adding significant meaning.

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 clearly states the tool starts an autonomous multi-agent conversation running in the background. It uses a specific verb ('start') and resource ('multi-agent conversation'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like send_message or inject_message which operate on an existing conversation.

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 explains when to use the tool (to initiate a background conversation) and references related tools (get_transcript, inject_message, stop_conversation) for post-start actions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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