start_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or whether the operation is synchronous. For a state-changing operation, this is a critical omission.

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 extremely concise but under-specified. It is a single tautological clause that provides no useful information beyond the tool name. This is not efficient conciseness; it is under-specification.

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?

Although the tool is simple with only two parameters, the description is insufficient. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and behavioral effects. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters (node, vmid), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, such as constraints or relationships, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Start a container' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'start_container'. It provides no additional detail about scope, variants, or distinctions from sibling tools like start_vm or restart_container. This qualifies as tautological.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the container must be stopped first, or exclusions (e.g., use start_vm for VMs). The usage is only implied by the tool name itself.

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