start_guest

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. It mentions the action ('Start') but lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, expected time to start, error conditions (e.g., if VM is already running), or what the output schema might indicate. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a brief parameter explanation in a labeled 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 has an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter, but as a mutation tool, it should include more behavioral details like error handling or side effects to be fully complete for agent use.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'vmid' by specifying it as 'The numeric ID of the VM or container to start', which clarifies its purpose beyond the schema's basic type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this compensates adequately, though it could note format constraints (e.g., valid ranges).

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 specific action ('Start') and target resource ('a stopped VM or container'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'stop_guest', 'reboot_guest', or 'shutdown_guest'. It explicitly mentions the state requirement ('stopped'), which helps differentiate its purpose from other power-state operations.

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 by specifying the target must be 'stopped', suggesting it should not be used on running or paused instances. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'reboot_guest' or 'shutdown_guest', nor does it mention prerequisites such as checking guest status first, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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