start_container

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently discloses a quota-related failure mode (402 when free hours are exhausted) and prescribes the correct agent behavior (relay, do not retry). This goes beyond a bare restatement of the tool's name and adds useful operational context, though it doesn't describe permissions or success responses.

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 no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical error-handling note follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter utility tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the most important exceptional behavior. It leaves out minor details like success response format, but those are not schema-required and the low complexity makes the description adequate.

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%, with the parameter 'container' already described as 'Container name or id'. The description 'Start a stopped container' adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action and target resource: 'Start a stopped container.' This is clear and distinct from stop_container. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling wake_container, which may overlap in functionality, so it stops short of a 5.

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 container' gives a clear condition for when to use the tool. The additional instruction about the 402 error — relay the message/link and do not retry — provides explicit behavioral guidance for a specific failure case. It lacks a directly named alternative tool, but the context is clear.

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