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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a concrete detail by explaining the action as 'scaling its Docker service to 1 replica', which goes beyond the bare name. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or error behaviors, but for a simple start operation this is adequate.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every word is purposeful.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and the mechanism, and the schema documents the parameter. It does not specify behavior for edge cases (e.g., already running apps), but given the low complexity, the description is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single 'app' parameter as 'App ID (UUID) or subdomain' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: to start a stopped or sleeping app by scaling its Docker service to 1 replica. The verb 'start' and resource 'app' are specific, and the mechanism differentiates it from sibling tools like stop_app and restart_app.

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 'stopped or sleeping app' implies the tool should be used for apps that are not currently running, giving context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., what to do if the app is already running).

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