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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a state-changing operation. The description usefully adds that it reverses civo_stop_instance, but says nothing about permissions, whether start is idempotent, or what happens if the instance is already running.

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, the inverse relationship next, and the API endpoint last; nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, the description is essentially complete. It could mention region scoping or auth requirements, but the schema already covers the region default and the annotations cover the mutation risk.

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 instance_id and region (including the CIVO_REGION default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Boot') and resource ('a stopped instance'), and explicitly names the inverse operation civo_stop_instance, which distinguishes it from sibling mutators like civo_reboot_instance.

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 'Undoes civo_stop_instance' phrasing gives a clear context for when to invoke it (recovering a stopped instance), but there is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of prerequisites such as the instance already being stopped.

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