Start application

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or asynchronous behavior. It only explains parameter effects, which are already in the schema, so the added behavioral value is minimal.

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 two short sentences, with the main action front-loaded and flag semantics in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 start operation with two booleans and no output schema, the description covers the core action and flags. However, it omits information about return values, whether the operation is synchronous, or any prerequisites besides the application being stopped. Given the sibling set, some guidance on response format would improve 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 100%, and each parameter already has a description. The tool description repeats these (e.g., 'force rebuilds without cache' matches the schema). It adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Start (deploy) a stopped application.' It specifies the resource (application) and the state (stopped), which helps distinguish it from restart or deploy. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies usage: start a stopped application. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over deploy or restart_application, nor does it list exclusions. The flag explanations give context but no alternatives, making the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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