start_ext_remedy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond those hints—no note about what the started remedy affects, whether it can be cancelled, or what permissions are needed for a non-idempotent open-world mutation.

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?

Two short fragments with the endpoint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity contributes to the missing context rather than being an independent strength.

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 non-idempotent, open-world mutation with a nested request body and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without any understanding of the remedy lifecycle, expected response, or effect on the target vserver. Annotations only partially compensate.

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% and the nested body fields (objectId, objectType, remedyTemplateId, remedyCollectionId) are individually documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (remedy) plus the HTTP endpoint, which tells an agent exactly what action is taken. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like start_ext_check_collection, cancel_ext_remedy, or get_ext_remedy, nor explain what a 'remedy' is in this API.

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?

There is no guidance on when to start a remedy versus cancelling one, retrieving one, or starting an external check collection. The agent must infer the workflow context entirely from the tool name.

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