mcs_start_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the start operation runs asynchronously in the MCS backend, the command returns immediately, and to confirm completion one must call mcs_wait_for_status. This is critical behavioral information that the agent needs to know to avoid assuming the server is ready. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear main sentence, an async behavior note, usage examples, and an Args section. It is slightly longer than absolutely necessary, but every sentence adds value. The front-loading is good: the core action and async behavior come first. A minor deduction for minor redundancy (the usage examples could be considered extra but they help parsing).

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 that the tool has one parameter, an output schema exists (though not detailed in the prompt), and the description covers purpose, usage, async behavior, and parameter semantics, it is complete. An agent can correctly invoke this tool and know how to verify success. No critical gaps.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: it defines instance_name as the server instance name (as configured in MCSManager) or instance UUID, and provides concrete examples like '生存服', 'SMP', '我的世界主服'. This gives the agent clear understanding of what to pass.

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 tool's purpose: to start a specified Minecraft server instance. It uses a specific verb ('启动' = start) and a specific resource (server instance), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like stop/restart/kill by specifying the action of starting. It even gives example usages ('启动XX服务器'), making the intent unmistakable.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: for requests like '启动XX服务器' (start XX server) or '把XX服开起来' (bring up XX server). It also provides guidance on how to confirm completion by calling mcs_wait_for_status with 'running' status, which is a clear follow-up instruction. It does not mention exclusions, but the context is clear and sufficient.

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