liara_start_vm

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. 'Start a virtual machine' implies a state-changing operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, side effects (e.g., billing implications), rate limits, or what happens if the VM is already running. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words—it directly states the tool's function without fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 state-changing operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in context.

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 (the 'vmId' parameter is documented as 'The VM ID'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or where to find the VM ID, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 virtual machine' clearly states the action (start) and resource (virtual machine), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'liara_restart_vm' or 'liara_stop_vm', which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.

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 like 'liara_restart_vm' or 'liara_stop_vm', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the VM must be stopped). There's no explicit when/when-not context or named alternatives, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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