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

readOnlyHint=false already signals mutation; the description adds the precondition that the project must be stopped. However, it does not disclose behavior like whether the call fails if the container is already running, whether it is idempotent, or what state changes occur. Some useful context is present, but significant behavioral details remain undisclosed.

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 entire description is one short, direct sentence with no redundant information. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core action and target.

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?

The tool is simple, but the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage guidance create real gaps in invoke-correctness. No output schema or additional annotations exist to fill these gaps, so the description is not fully complete. An agent still lacks key invocation details such as how to identify the project and whether the lone parameter is required.

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 schema defines a single 'project' string with no description and no required flag, and the description never explains what value should be passed. Because schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate by defining the parameter format, but it only repeats the word 'project'. An agent cannot tell whether this is a name, ID, or optional with a default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start'), names the resource ('project's container'), and qualifies it as 'stopped', making the operation unambiguous. It clearly contrasts with sibling tools like stop_project and restart_project, though it does not name them explicitly. The purpose is immediately understandable to an agent.

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 description offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as restart_project or deploy_project, and does not state prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies the tool is for stopped projects. An agent is left to infer usage context from the sibling names.

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