start_slice

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and error handling. It mentions two behaviors (plan requirement, collision handling) but omits whether the operation is a mutation, what a successful start returns, or any permission needs. This is insufficient for a starting action.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action, but the brevity borders on under-specification. It could benefit from a structured breakdown of prerequisites or expected outcomes.

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 three required parameters, no annotations, and a rich sibling set, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or how it relates to accept_slice and other workflow tools, leaving agents without enough context to invoke correctly.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of slice_id, actor_id, or plan_id beyond their obvious names. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameter meaning entirely to inference.

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 clear action ('Start a slice') and adds a specific precondition (mandatory recorded plan). It distinguishes from siblings like 'accept_slice' by implying this is the initiating step, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 a concrete prerequisite ('matching recorded plan is mandatory') and clarifies collision behavior ('collisions only warn'). However, it does not explain when to choose this over similar tools like accept_slice or submit_plan, leaving the routing partially implicit.

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