nexterm_start_integration_entry

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

The annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds only that the target is an external resource tied to an integration entry, without explaining side effects, permissions, whether starting is asynchronous, or what happens if the resource is already running.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to gaps addressed in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw.

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 mutation tool with one required identifier, no output schema, and sibling lifecycle operations, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, expected effects, return behavior, and how it relates to stop, shutdown, and wake operations.

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 0%, and the sole parameter entry_id is not explained in the description. The schema only says it is a required integer with minimum 1, leaving the agent without semantic guidance about what the ID refers to or how to obtain it.

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,' and a specific resource, 'the external resource represented by an integration entry.' This clearly distinguishes the action from sibling stop/shutdown operations, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as nexterm_stop_integration_entry, nexterm_shutdown_integration_entry, or nexterm_wake_entry. There are no preconditions, exclusions, or routing hints.

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