Запуск сервера

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

The description claims 'Идемпотентен' (idempotent) while the annotations set idempotentHint=false, contradicting the structured data. The described behavior (error on already running server) is not idempotent, making the claim misleading and inconsistent with the annotation.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and each word provides necessary information: the action, the idempotence claim (though flawed), the error condition, and a precondition check. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description provides the core behavior, the error case, and a recommended prerequisite (get_server), making it mostly complete. The misleading idempotence claim creates some confusion, but it does not omit essential operational context.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single required parameter server_id with a clear description (ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - ID сервера для запуска). The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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 starts with 'Запускает выключенный VPS' (Starts a powered-off VPS), clearly stating the action, target, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hard_reboot_server or shutdown_server by focusing on starting an off server and noting the error on an already-running one.

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 explicitly instructs to check the server status via get_server before calling, establishing a clear precondition. It also states that calling on a running server returns an error, providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without ambiguity.

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