Start Application

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

Behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the destructiveHint/readOnlyHint annotations: the tool's behavior depends on application state, it waits for RUNNING, and raises InvalidStateError for DEAD/DELETED. This gives the agent operational expectations.

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?

Description is concise, using a short intro sentence and a bulleted list for state behavior. No redundant text, and all content adds value.

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 simple tool, the description covers the state machine, error cases, and overall purpose. Without seeing the output schema, the return format is presumably covered there. Slight gap: no mention of timeout behavior beyond schema, but schema covers it.

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?

Input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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?

Clearly states 'Start an application on Itential Platform' with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from siblings like start_adapter by targeting applications, and the state-based behavior clarifies that it acts only on stopped applications.

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 does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. It implies usage via state behavior: use when STOPPED, not effective when RUNNING, and unusable when DEAD/DELETED. A clearer reference to restart_application for restart scenarios would improve guidance.

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