start_vm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether the call is idempotent, what happens if the VM is already running, whether it blocks until boot completes, or what permissions are required for a state-changing operation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a strength in itself.

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 state-mutating VM lifecycle tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits critical context: current-state prerequisites, the start-vs-resume distinction, and any indication of the result. An agent could invoke it against the wrong state and get an error.

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%: the single required parameter is documented as "VM name or UUID". The description adds nothing beyond that schema text, 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Start a virtual machine"), so the action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings that are semantically close, notably resume_vm and reset_vm, leaving the agent to guess which lifecycle operation 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 guidance on when to use start_vm versus resume_vm (starting a stopped VM vs. resuming a suspended/paused one), which is the key ambiguity among the siblings. No preconditions, state requirements, or exclusions are stated.

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