instance_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'starts' an instance, implying a state change, and mentions the start is confirmed by a status message. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions needed, or whether the instance must be stopped. It provides basic context but not deep transparency.

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 and front-loaded with the main action. It includes a parameter explanation and a returns note, all in a few lines. No unnecessary filler; it's efficient and well-structured.

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 action tool, the description covers the essential: what it does, the parameter flexibility, and the return. It doesn't need extensive context when compared to complex multi-parameter tools. It is reasonably complete given its simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It does explain that instance_id can be an ID, label, or hostname with examples, which adds meaning beyond the schema's plain string type. This is valuable, but it doesn't clarify the format or validation rules, so a 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 clearly states the action ('Start a stopped instance') with a specific resource. It is distinct from siblings like instance_stop, instance_reboot, and instance_reinstall, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear and unambiguous.

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 implies usage: it is for instances that are stopped, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state conditions like 'only use when the instance is stopped' or contrast with instance_reboot or instance_reinstall. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the instance existing or being in a stopped state.

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