start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it. It doesn't say whether starting is idempotent, what happens to already-running services, or why a one-shot confirmation_token is required — a strong signal of a two-phase confirm flow that goes unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is efficient. It loses a point only because the brevity crosses into under-specification for a mutating tool.

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?

With no annotations, four parameters, a required confirmation token, and a mutation semantics, one sentence is not enough. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the confirmation flow, dependency default, and relationship to 'plan'/'up' remain undocumented.

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 documents all four parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description's reference to the 'resolved application plan' loosely connects to confirmation_token but adds no syntax, format, or selector-matching detail beyond the schema.

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?

It states a verb ('Start') and a resource ('selected services'), but the qualifier 'using the resolved application plan' is jargon that doesn't clarify behavior. It also fails to distinguish this tool from close siblings like 'up', 'restart', and 'reload', leaving the agent to guess which entry point applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as 'up' or 'plan'. The phrase 'resolved application plan' hints that a plan step precedes this call, but the relationship is never made explicit.

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