start service MONA Cloud

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job by warning that starting can incur costs, advising to check the wallet first, and clarifying sandbox=true costs 0đ with no wallet required. This addresses the most critical behavioral side effect, though it omits details like idempotency, failure behavior, or effects on an already-running service.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The core action and resource are front-loaded, followed by the cost warning and the sandbox clarification. No filler or redundant restatement beyond the minimal title overlap.

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?

The description covers the essentials: what it starts, the cost risk, and the free-test path. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., job ID, status), whether the service must already exist, and what the response/UI will say. This is adequate but not fully complete for an agent making autonomous calls.

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 only 50% since service_id lacks a description, while sandbox has one. The description reinforces the sandbox semantics and hints that service_id refers to a MONA VPS/database, but does not explain the service_id format, where to obtain it, or how it is validated. This is partial compensation at best.

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?

Description clearly states action 'start' and target 'VPS/database MONA Cloud', which resolves the exact resource type and scope. It is visually and semantically distinct from sibling tools like cloud_service_stop, cloud_service_rebuild, and vibecloud_start.

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?

Provides useful context about cost and sandbox mode, implying sandbox should be used for free testing. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like cloud_vps_create, cloud_services, or vibecloud_start, nor does it give conditions for normal vs sandbox use.

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