boxes.start

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

No annotations are provided (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint absent), so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The single sentence discloses no side effects, no requirement that the VM be in a stopped state, no mention of whether this is non-blocking (queues the boot) or blocking, and no idempotency semantics. For a state-changing operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

One short, wasteful sentence that communicates the verb, object, and domain context efficiently. It is not padded with filler, though the brevity is as much a product of under-specification as it is of restraint.

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?

The tool is trivial (one fully-documented parameter, no nested objects, no output schema, no enums), so there is little metadata for the description to duplicate or supplement. The main hole is the lack of guidance about VM state (stopped vs. running vs. suspended) and the absence of any side-effect or prerequisite details. It is acceptable but leaves the most useful contextual information on the table.

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% — the single parameter nameOrUuid is fully self-documenting with the description 'Domain name or UUID'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 applies; the parameter meaning is entirely contained in 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 uses a specific, active verb ('Start') with a clear resource ('a domain (VM)'), and the parenthetical disambiguates 'domain' as a libvirt VM rather than a DNS domain. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the power-on counterpart to shutdown/resume, though it doesn't explicitly disambiguate when to use 'start' vs 'resume' — a distinction an agent would have to infer.

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?

No usage guidance is provided whatsoever. The description neither states when this tool is appropriate nor differentiates it from the semantically overlapping sibling 'boxes.resume' (both power-on-like operations) or from 'boxes.reboot'. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to call this on a stopped VM, a suspended VM, or both.

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