liara_start_database

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 states the action ('Start') but does not reveal any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it's idempotent, expected duration, side effects (e.g., service interruption), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with 'Start a database', consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. This efficiency is appropriate for a simple tool, though it may sacrifice detail for brevity.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects, usage context, and expected outcomes, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage does not compensate for these gaps in a mutation tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'The name of the database'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 database' clearly states the action (start) and resource (database), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'starting' entails (e.g., booting up, resuming from a stopped state) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like liara_restart_database or liara_stop_database, making it vague in context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the database must be stopped), exclusions (e.g., cannot start if already running), or related tools like liara_stop_database or liara_restart_database, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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