start_edit_tracking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'non-destructive' and 'queue' implying an async job, but omits important details: what is returned (job ID?), safety, side effects, error handling, or whether multiple jobs can be queued. The disclosure is incomplete.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and one behavioral aspect (non-destructive). However, it lacks return value info, async behavior confirmation, and error scenarios. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a moderately complex tool.

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%, but the description adds value especially for the 'parameters' object by listing supported keys (exposure, contrast, etc.), which is not fully covered by the schema's generic description. For 'target' and 'operation', it clarifies permissible values beyond schema constraints.

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 queues a non-destructive develop settings job, specifying verb ('queue'), resource ('develop settings job'), and context ('Lightroom-side, non-destructive'). It distinguishes from siblings like start_export and start_import which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or contrast with related tools in the sibling list.

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