Start project

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that containers are brought up in dependency order and only stopped services are started. It does not go into idempotency or asynchronicity, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, purposeful sentences: what it does, how Compose handles ordering, and when to use it. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 a two-parameter start operation with a 100%-covered schema, the description is nearly complete. It could mention what happens if the project is already running or what the return value looks like, but these are relatively minor for a simple start action.

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 the schema already documents virtualMachineId and projectName, including the project name character restriction. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond referring to a Docker Compose project, so the baseline score 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource-scope statement: 'Starts all services in a Docker Compose project that are currently stopped.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling operations like VPS_restartProjectV1 and VPS_stopProjectV1.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: resume a previously stopped project or start services after a reboot. It does not name when-not-to-use or point to alternatives such as VPS_restartProjectV1, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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