pve_start_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Start a container' implies a state-changing operation, but it doesn't reveal critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure (e.g., error handling), or if it's asynchronous. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise with just three words ('Start a container'), which is front-loaded and wastes no space. Every word directly contributes to the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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?

Given the complexity of starting a container (a mutation operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use the tool correctly. For a tool with 3 parameters and no structured safety hints, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter names and descriptions (e.g., 'node' as 'Node name', 'vmid' as 'Container ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 'Start a container' clearly states the verb ('Start') and resource ('a container'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what type of container (e.g., LXC vs. Docker) and doesn't distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'pve_start_vm' or 'pve_resume_container', which also involve starting/resuming virtual entities. This makes it vague in the broader context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the container must exist and be stopped), exclusions (e.g., not for VMs), or related tools like 'pve_stop_container' or 'pve_reboot_container'. Without such context, an agent might misuse it or overlook better options.

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