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

Goes beyond the lone readOnlyHint=false annotation by disclosing that the call blocks until readiness and that a readiness failure surfaces as a named error. It still omits whether calling on an already-running project errors or is idempotent.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the blocking/error behavior following. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

Behavioral coverage is good for a lifecycle mutation tool with no output schema, but the single required-to-be-understood identifier parameter is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

There is one parameter ('project') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains whether it expects a name, ID, or slug. With coverage this low the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a stopped project's container') with enough scope detail to know it targets a stopped project. It does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling restart_project, which an agent must choose between.

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 project's container' implies the precondition (project must be stopped) but never states it as a rule or contrasts with restart_project/deploy_project. Usage is inferred rather than guided.

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