actiond_server_start

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond these: daemon mode, the safety-gate env var refusal, the no-op on already-running servers, and the returned envelope plus daemon output. The no-op statement directly corroborates idempotentHint=true; no contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, safety gate, then behavior/return/follow-up. The core action is front-loaded before the conditions, and there is no filler or repetition of the title or annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return shape ('action/changed/running/message envelope plus daemon output') and the recommended verification step. For a 0-param lifecycle tool whose safety profile is already in the annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially covered at 100%, so per the baseline for 0-param tools a 4 applies. There are no parameters to explain, and the description does not waste space fabricating parameter detail.

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 and resource — 'Start the ActionD server in daemon mode' — with the daemon-mode qualifier adding precision. It distinguishes itself from the lifecycle siblings actiond_server_restart and actiond_server_stop by being the start operation, so an agent can tell them apart without opening 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?

Gives clear context: it is a lifecycle start usable only when ACTIOND_MCP_ALLOW_LIFECYCLE=1 is set, and it directs the agent to verify health afterwards with actiond_status. It does not explicitly name exclusions or contrast against server_restart/server_stop, so it stops short of a 5, but the precondition and follow-up pointer provide solid when-to-use guidance.

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