start

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a state-changing, externally visible operation. The description usefully adds that it will not provision or install an OS, which prevents a common misconception, but it never addresses the destructive flag, idempotency, or whether the call blocks until the VM is ready.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the key exclusion. No filler and nothing that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 zero-parameter action the description covers the essentials, and annotations carry the safety profile. It falls short on operational details an agent would want for an open-world, destructive operation: whether the call waits for readiness, what happens on an already-running VM, and what the return looks like (there is no output schema to fall back on).

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no risk of a parameter mismatch. The baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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?

Names a specific verb (start) and resource (Windows VM) and scopes it with 'previously configured'. The opposite sibling (stop) is implicitly contrasted, though it is never named, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring it.

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 word 'previously configured' implies a prerequisite, and 'Does not create or install Windows' states one boundary. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus stop/status, no statement about behavior if the VM is already running, and no stated preconditions such as authentication or setup.

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