vm_start

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds the optional SSH-wait behavior, which is useful, but it does not explain timeout handling, wait_ip behavior, or what happens if the VM 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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The key action and the optional waiting behavior are stated directly and efficiently.

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 state-changing tool with four parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the single sentence leaves important operational details unstated: the meaning of wait_ip, timeout scope, the return value, and behavior when the VM is already running. Annotations cover safety but not operational completeness.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only hints at wait_ssh via 'attend optionnellement que SSH soit accessible' and does not clarify vm_name, timeout, or wait_ip 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 states a specific action ('Démarre' / starts) on a specific resource ('VM KVM') and adds an optional waiting behavior for SSH. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vm_stop, vm_destroy, and vm_status.

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 tool's purpose implies that it is used to start a VM, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions such as 'use vm_status to check state' or 'use vm_verify to check accessibility'. Usage context is only implied.

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