start_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'start' without revealing idempotency, async behavior, side effects on an already-running node, or the meaning of the 'wait' parameter.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource. While very short, it is free of redundancy and gets straight to the point.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits behavior around the wait flag, idempotency, and what output to expect. Although an output schema exists, the description still lacks enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0%; the description adds zero explanation of lab_id, node_id, or wait. The 'wait' parameter in particular is ambiguous—wait for what? The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of field descriptions.

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 tool starts a single node, with 'boot' as a synonym. The qualifier 'single' distinguishes it from starting a whole lab, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives. It is concise and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_lab or stop_node. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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