hostodo_start_vm_command

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

Discloses async behavior, immediate return with command_id, and required permissions. With no annotations, the description carries the burden well, though it doesn't detail side effects like process management.

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 succinct sentences: purpose, behavior, usage. No waste; front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

Covers return value (command_id), polling approach, use cases, and prerequisites. No output schema, but description compensates. Missing details like error handling, but acceptable for the tool's simplicity.

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% and the description restates schema descriptions without adding new meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it starts an async command on a VPS and returns a command_id for polling. It differentiates from siblings like hostodo_exec_vm_command (sync) and hostodo_get_vm_command_output (polling).

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?

Lists appropriate use cases (builds, package installs, etc.) and prerequisites (vms:exec scope, mcp_exec_enabled=true). Could explicitly compare to alternative tools, but the async nature implies when to use it.

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