start_adapter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple 'start' by specifying the outcome for each adapter state, including raising InvalidStateError for DEAD/DELETED and waiting for RUNNING when STOPPED. This is strong transparency, though it omits return detail or side effects.

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 appropriately concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a bulleted list for the state-behavior details. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's simple two-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context by explaining state-dependent behavior and error conditions. It could mention prerequisites or the return payload, but the current content is reasonably complete for a start 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the two parameters, so the description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. The note about waiting for RUNNING state indirectly relates to the timeout parameter, but the description does not explicitly elaborate on parameter usage.

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 an adapter on Itential Platform.' It identifies the specific resource (adapter) and the verb (start), and the state-based behavior further distinguishes it from sibling tools like stop_adapter and restart_adapter.

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 clear context for when to use the tool by detailing state-dependent behavior: it's effective for STOPPED adapters, a no-op for RUNNING, and invalid for DEAD/DELETED adapters. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the state matrix implies when not to use it.

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