Start / stop / restart

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

The description adds a useful behavioral caveat ('Stopping a Free-plan bot does not pause its free running time') that goes beyond the minimal destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not disclose other side effects, idempotency, or what happens on restart, leaving the annotation to carry most of the safety profile.

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 two short sentences with zero filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the free-plan caveat is placed as a secondary sentence, keeping structure clean and scannable.

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?

Given two required parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description leaves important gaps: it does not state whether the project must already exist, what the tool returns, or how restart differs from stop+start. The free-plan note is helpful but not enough for confident invocation in all cases.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate, but it only says 'a project' and never explains what project_id refers to or how the action values map to behavior. The enum and integer constraints in the schema are present, but the description adds no semantic linkage (e.g., where to get project_id or what restart implies).

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 states a specific verb-action set ('Start, stop or restart') on a clear resource ('a project'), which immediately differentiates it from sibling tools like netrun_status, netrun_logs, and netrun_list_projects. No other sibling performs lifecycle control, so an agent can select this tool without opening the schema.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, no prerequisites, and no exclusions beyond the free-plan note, which is a behavioral fact rather than a usage criterion. An agent must infer the use case from the name and title only.

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