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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false) by disclosing that billing resumes, that the response is an operation needing polling via exoscale_get_operation, and the underlying PUT /instance/{id}:start call. These are exactly the side-effect and workflow details an agent needs before mutating.

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?

Front-loaded with 'WRITE:' to signal mutation, then packs scope, cost implication, and the required follow-up call into a single tight block with no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return value (an operation) and the exact next step (poll with exoscale_get_operation), covering the agent's full workflow. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the id and zone parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description only echoes {id} in the REST path. No added meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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 (start) and resource (compute instance) and narrows the scope with 'stopped', 'normal boot, no rescue profile'. This clearly separates it from siblings exoscale_stop_instance and exoscale_reboot_instance without needing their schemas.

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 precondition 'stopped compute instance' tells the agent when the call is valid, and 'no rescue profile' excludes a variant. It does not explicitly name the alternatives (stop/reboot) or state what to do if the instance is already running, so guidance is clear but not fully closed.

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