bare_metal_start_bare_metal_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the identifier resolution behaviors (label, hostname, UUID) and that it returns a success message, but does not mention any side effects (e.g., billing starts, requires server to be stopped), provisioning time, or error conditions. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 concise (about 5 lines) and front-loads the main action ('Start a bare metal server.'). It includes an 'Args' section and 'Returns' section, which are clearly structuredUTE. No irrelevant filler; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the parameter semantics and the return type (success message). However, it could benefit from noting prerequisites like that the server must exist and be in a stopped state, and potential side effects (e.g., billing implications). This is a minor gap.

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 schema only defines the parameter as a string with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds critical semantics by explaining that the parameter accepts label, hostname, or UUID, and names it 'server_identifier'. This is a significant addition, but there are no other parameters to elaborate on. Baseline for 0 params would be 4, but with 1 parameter it's slightly lower because more detail could be given on accepted formats.

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 ('Start') and resource ('bare metal server'), and clarifies that it targets bare metal servers as opposed to standard instances (sibling instance_start). It also specifies identifier resolution methods, distinguishing it from other lifecycle operations (stop, reboot, delete).

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to start a bare metal server, with flexible identifier types. It implies usage context but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like instance_start or bare_metal_reboot; however, the resource name makes the distinction clear.

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