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

With only destructiveHint=true in annotations, the description adds important behavior: billing accrues per minute of uptime until stopped, and the action is reversible via together_stop_endpoint. This gives the agent cost and reversibility context that annotations do not provide.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then billing, reversibility, and backend operation. All sentences are short and none are redundant for the decision to invoke the tool.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and a destructive hint, the description supplies the key missing context: what it does, cost implications, and how to undo it. Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 the single endpoint_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description references endpointId in the API path but adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 stopped dedicated endpoint.' It clearly distinguishes the action from siblings, especially by naming together_stop_endpoint as the reversal.

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?

It implies usage when an endpoint is stopped and names the alternative reverse action, together_stop_endpoint. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or route to create/get alternatives for other endpoint states.

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