start_instance

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, omitting critical traits like whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or what happens if the instance is already running or not found. No error conditions or side effects are mentioned.

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 a single sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or additional sections). It front-loads the core purpose but is too sparse to be considered well-structured for an AI agent.

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 tool's simplicity (single parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description could be minimal. However, it fails to mention the required instance state (stopped) or provide any context about preconditions and errors. The presence of many sibling tools further demands more completeness to avoid confusion.

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 0% description coverage for the 'name' parameter, and the tool description adds no further meaning. While 'name' is self-explanatory, the description could clarify it refers to the instance name to start, especially given sibling tools with identical parameter names. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Start' and the resource 'stopped Multipass instance', distinguishing it from siblings like stop_instance, launch_instance, and resume_instance. However, it does not explicitly mention that the instance must already exist and be in a stopped state, which would enhance clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not differentiate between starting a stopped instance (this tool) and resuming a suspended instance (resume_instance). The description lacks any usage context or prerequisites.

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