start_action_async

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

With annotations already indicating destructive intent, the description adds valuable context: 'Requires human approval — this triggers a real action on the host.' It also discloses the async return behavior (execution_tracking_id immediately) without contradicting the annotations, enhancing the agent's understanding of side effects and process.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, async behavior with follow-up tools, and approval requirement. The description is front-loaded with the core action and avoids repetition or fluff.

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 tool with two simple parameters and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how it behaves, what to do next, and the human approval prerequisite. It is sufficiently complete without needing to explain return values (output schema exists).

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%, placing the burden on the description to explain parameters. The description mentions 'arguments' only in the tool name, not in the description, and fails to explain what arguments are or how they map to the action. The schema shows action_id and arguments but provides no semantic meaning beyond types, leaving a significant gap.

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's purpose: 'Start an OliveTin action asynchronously (StartAction RPC).' It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing async behavior and the immediate return of an execution_tracking_id, which differentiates it from status, cancel, and list tools.

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 explicitly directs users to get_execution_status for polling and kill_action for cancellation, providing clear alternative actions. It also notes the requirement of human approval, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if synchronous results are needed), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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