start_api_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Start' without revealing side effects such as whether the server runs in the background, blocks the process, binds a port, requires auth, is idempotent, or how to stop it. This is a significant gap for an action that likely starts a long-running process.

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?

One direct sentence with a clear verb, object, and domain. No filler or redundant phrasing; the key information is front-loaded.

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 description is adequate for a simple one-parameter start command, but it misses lifecycle and side-effect information. With no output schema, an agent does not know what a successful invocation returns, whether the server is long-running, or how to confirm it is ready—so the definition is acceptable but not 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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'diagram' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds a little domain context by tying the server to the ER diagram entities, but it does not meaningfully clarify parameter format, defaults, or the fallback to configured source—that is already covered by the schema.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Start'), the resource ('REST/GraphQL API server'), and the scope ('for the entities in the ER diagram'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_api_server and get_api_endpoints without needing to inspect 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?

The description implies when to use the tool—after working with an ER diagram and before interacting with API endpoints—but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It also does not reference the natural counterpart stop_api_server, leaving some usage context to inference.

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