start_service

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It covers authorization, safety (non-destructive), and billing impact, which is good. However, it omits potential scenarios like idempotency (what if already running?), async vs sync, or error conditions. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 sentences clearly state the action, prerequisites, and safety profile without unnecessary words. It earned 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 straightforward power-on action with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and behavioral traits (no billing, not destructive). It lacks specification of return value or async behavior, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema's 'Service ID from list_services.' Both say the same thing. With full schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.

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 ('Power on') and resource ('service'), explicitly clarifying the scope (cloud VM or legacy VPS). It directly contrasts with siblings like stop_service and reboot_service, providing clear differentiation.

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 description includes prerequisites (scope and source of service_id) and clarifies the non-destructive, no-billing nature, guiding appropriate use. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclude cases where other tools might be more appropriate (e.g., if you need to force start). Nonetheless, the context is sufficient for most agents.

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