repopilot_start_step

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that reusing the idempotency key returns the existing Step instead of creating a duplicate, and notes the durable nature of the step. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, providing context on side effects.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then usage context, then idempotency detail. No superfluous words; every sentence earns its place. Well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 4 required parameters, two enums, and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, idempotency, and return usage. It doesn't specify error conditions or prerequisites like runId validity, but these are implicit in the domain. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of returning a Step ID. Adequately complete for an agent to call it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the idempotencyKey's role (reusing it returns the existing Step) and implicitly that the tool returns a Step ID used by repopilot_finish_step. This enriches parameter understanding beyond schema descriptions, justifying a score above baseline.

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 a durable Agent Skill execution Step for an existing RepoPilot run, with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the immediate usage context by saying to call it before executing the named Skill and pass the returned Step ID to repopilot_finish_step, distinguishing it from the finish step sibling.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: call immediately before executing the named Skill, and clarifies idempotency behavior for retries. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the workflow context and mention of the finish step make usage clear. Doesn't exclude other tools but the step-start role is unambiguous.

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