start_vm

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about the mutation: no statement of what state the VM must be in, whether the call blocks until the VM is running, whether it is idempotent, or what errors occur on an already-running VM.

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?

At three words there is no wasted text, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence does not front-load any information an agent could not already get from the tool name.

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 VM lifecycle tool with an enum-typed mode parameter and no annotations and no output schema, the definition is completely inadequate. Nothing tells the agent how to choose between headless, gui, and separate, or what to expect after the call.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'vm' parameter is documented in the schema, but the 'type' enum (headless/gui/separate) has no description anywhere. The description adds zero meaning about either parameter, so the undocumented enum mode — arguably the most consequential choice here — is left unexplained.

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?

"Start a VM." restates the tool name and nothing more; it is a tautology of start_vm. It gives no indication of how this differs from siblings such as resume_vm, save_vm_state, or reset_vm, all of which also change VM power state.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. the VM must be stopped or suspended), and no pointer to the alternative tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer the selection rules entirely from tool names.

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