start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: no indication whether the operation is idempotent, whether it fails or no-ops on an already-running service, whether it's asynchronous, what permissions are required, or what is returned. This is a mutation/lifecycle tool, so these gaps matter.

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?

Five words, front-loaded verb, zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter action, though the terseness comes at the cost of the behavioral detail above.

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 structurally simple (one required string param, no nested objects, no output schema), but with no annotations and no description of post-call behavior or state preconditions, an agent cannot predict what happens when starting an already-running or nonexistent service.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'service' parameter already documents the id-or-`project.service` format. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so 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?

"Start a stopped service" names a specific verb and resource, and the qualifier "stopped" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'restart' (which would apply to running services). It's clear but doesn't explicitly call out that distinction or mention the 'stop' counterpart.

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 "stopped" hints at the precondition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use start vs restart, or what to do if the service is already running. Usage is only implied.

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