start_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well by enumerating per-state outcomes, including the InvalidStateError for DEAD/DELETED. It stops short of discussing permissions, timeout failure behavior, or side effects beyond state transition, but the key behaviors are 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 bullet lines under a one-sentence summary; no filler or redundant elaboration. The structure front-loads the purpose and then presents the state table efficiently.

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 start operation with an output schema and full parameter docs, the state-behavior and error condition make the description sufficiently complete for basic use. It lacks explicit alternatives/restart guidance and timeout-failure details, but these are not required given the simple contract.

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%, so the schema already fully documents name and timeout. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, and the phrase 'waits for RUNNING state' only loosely implies the timeout parameter.

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 clear verb-object statement, 'Start an application on Itential Platform,' identifying the resource and action. The state-based behavior bullets add specificity, but the description does not explicitly distinguish start_application from sibling tools like restart_application or stop_application.

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 state-based behavior implies when the tool is useful (e.g., starting a STOPPED application) and notes that RUNNING results in no action, offering some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over restart_application or provide exclusion criteria.

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