liara_start_mail_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't mention whether this is a safe operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential side effects (e.g., service interruption, billing implications), rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. 'Start' implies a state change but lacks crucial operational context.

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?

While technically concise with only three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary information that would help an agent understand and use the tool correctly. Every word should earn its place, but here the description is too sparse to be useful.

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 tool that performs a state-changing operation (starting a service) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'starting' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or how this differs from related operations. The agent lacks essential context to use this 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage (mailId parameter is clearly documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides—it doesn't explain what a mail server ID represents, where to find it, or format requirements.

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 mail server' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'liara_start_mail_server'. While it identifies the resource (mail server) and verb (start), it lacks specificity about what 'starting' entails operationally and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'liara_restart_mail_server' or 'liara_stop_mail_server'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the mail server must exist and be stopped), comparison to restart operations, or what scenarios warrant starting versus creating a new mail server. The agent receives zero contextual direction.

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