start_notebook

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the core state transition by naming the exact annotation to remove, but it does not mention what happens if the Notebook is already running, required permissions, or failure behavior.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and follows with the precise mechanism. No filler or redundant information is present.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description gives the target state and exact annotation needed. With an output schema present, return values are already covered; the main gap is the lack of parameter semantics and edge-case behavior, which are minor for this operation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention name, namespace, or cluster at all. An agent must infer parameter meaning from the raw field names, and the description adds no parameter-level value.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Start a stopped Notebook') and explains the mechanism ('removing the kubeflow-resource-stopped annotation'). This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_notebook and list_notebooks.

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 clearly establishes the applicable condition: the tool is used when a Notebook is stopped. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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