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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds useful context that the target must be a stopped instance and that this is the inverse of stop. It does not disclose idempotency (behavior on an already-running instance), permission requirements, or what the call returns. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is an adequate-but-not-rich 3.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by the inverse relationship and the underlying API endpoint for traceability. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, inverse operation, and endpoint; annotations cover the safety hint and schema covers all parameters. Minor gaps remain around permissions and behavior on an already-running instance.

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%, so both instance_id and region are fully documented in the schema, including the region-default rule and the pointer to civo_list_regions. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (boot/start) and resource (a stopped instance), and explicitly names the sibling operation it reverses (civo_stop_instance). An agent can distinguish this from civo_stop_instance, civo_reboot_instance, and civo_get_instance without opening any schema.

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?

"Undoes civo_stop_instance" gives a clear condition for use and points at the sibling alternative implicitly. It does not state when not to use it (e.g. an instance already running, or a reboot being more appropriate), so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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