Start application

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds real behavioral value: the applications:manage permission requirement, the client-global idempotency key requirement, and the fact that this is an async queued operation requiring follow-up polling. It stops short of saying what to do if the app is not stopped or how long the queue typically takes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its precondition, then the confirmation step and the follow-up polling. No filler.

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 an async mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing context: required scope, idempotency key usage, the confirmation gate, and the need to poll installation/events afterwards. Error and failure-handling behavior is left unstated, keeping it just short of complete.

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 100%, so all four parameters including orderNo, installation_id, idempotencyKey and confirmed are fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces confirmation and idempotency semantics, adding little beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 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?

States a precise verb+resource ('Start a stopped owned managed application') and adds the precondition that the target must be stopped and owned, which separates it from siblings like start_service, restart_application and install_application without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives clear operational context: confirm first, then poll installation and events until the queued operation completes. It does not explicitly contrast with restart_application or start_service, so the agent must infer the stopped-vs-running distinction, but the usage intent is unambiguous.

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