start_collaboration

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns a collaboration ID and that agents take turns building on each other's ideas, but it omits notable behaviors such as the default one-round return behavior, persistence of the session, or side effects beyond starting the collaboration.

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?

Two short, information-dense sentences with no filler. The core action and return value are front-loaded, followed by a concise behavioral note about turn-taking.

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 rich 8-parameter schema with full coverage, the description adequately covers the core behavior and return value. It could go further by hinting that subsequent collaboration-management tools like continue_collaboration or nudge_collaboration operate on the returned ID, but this is not critical for a first call.

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 100%, so the input schema documents all parameters. The tool description adds no parameter-level nuance beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the action (starting a collaboration session), the resource (a multi-agent discussion), and the outcome (a collaboration ID). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like start_meeting or chat_completion, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'where multiple agents discuss a topic with each other' implies the intended use case, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives, nor any exclusions. It does not mention that chat_completion or start_meeting are better fits for single-agent or meeting-style interactions.

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