start_instance

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'start' without explaining side effects, idempotency, asynchrony, required VM state, or what the response contains. This is minimal disclosure for a state-changing operation.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is economical and easy to parse, though it is slightly too terse to fully compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides only the core action and resource. It lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and outcome information, leaving an agent to infer too much from the tool name and sibling names.

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 covers 100% of parameter documentation, including the instance_id string and its description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, but none is strictly required here.

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 ('Запустить' - start) and resource ('виртуальную машину' - virtual machine), making the action clear and distinguishing it from stop_instance and list_instances. It does not mention the broader service or any constraints, so it falls just short of 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_instance or get_instance. There are no stated prerequisites, such as the VM needing to be in a stopped state, and no mention of when this tool should not be used.

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