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

Annotations already declare the tool is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that the call 'asks no human,' implying no approval step is required, but it does not explain permissions, idempotency, or side effects for a mutation tool.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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?

For a mutation tool with six parameters, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves key parameters and behavioral details unexplained, so an agent would need to infer much of the call semantics.

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 only 17%, with just the 'server' parameter documented. The description mentions 'Service' but adds no meaningful semantics for the other parameters such as project, environment, request_key, or wait_seconds.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Start a Service's stopped containers'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling service_restart, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 containers' implies the tool should be used when a service is not running. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose service_start over service_restart or deploy, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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