Start beook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add value by saying restart will 'close it normally' — a hint that unsaved state is handled gracefully. However, it omits what the agent should expect operationally: whether the call blocks until the app is ready, how long it may take, what happens on failure (not installed, port conflict), and what is returned.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed immediately by the one conditional case. Nothing is repeated and every clause carries information.

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 zero-required-param launcher with a single optional flag and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the restart case adequately. What is missing is outcome information an agent needs to act on the result — whether success means the app is ready to use, and how failures surface.

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% and the schema already describes restart as 'Close a running beook and reopen it.' The description's only addition is the pre-condition (already running *without the debug connection*) that should trigger restart=true, which is a marginal but genuine clarification of when the flag 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Start') on a specific resource ('beook') and qualifies the goal ('with the debug connection this server needs'), which explains why this tool exists rather than just launching the app. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the intent is unmistakable against tools like beook_status or beook_click.

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 gives a concrete conditional: if beook is already running without the debug connection, pass restart=true. That is real when-to-use guidance tied to a runtime state. It stops short of stating the default path (call with no args when beook is not running) or what to do if it is already running correctly, both of which are only implied.

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