portainer_stack_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the action 'start' but omits side effects, prerequisites, error handling, or idempotency. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, with a single-purpose sentence followed by clear parameter explanations. No redundant wording; every sentence adds value and the purpose 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?

Given the simplicity of the action and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, it lacks any mention of failure modes, prerequisites, or behavior when the stack is already running, leaving the agent without complete context for a state-changing 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: stack_id as the target stack, and endpoint_id with a note that it is derived from the stack if omitted. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 states the action 'Start a stopped stack' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like portainer_stack_stop and portainer_stack_deploy by its focus on starting an already-existing, stopped stack.

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 usage when a stack is stopped, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state conditions for non-use. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over deploy/update or when to avoid it, such as if the stack is already running.

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