start_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions initialization and accessibility, but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, potential side effects (e.g., resource consumption), expected runtime, error conditions, or what 'accessible' means operationally. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and effect. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action.

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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after starting (e.g., how to verify success, what 'accessible' means, potential errors, or return values). Given the complexity of starting an application container, more behavioral context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the UUID parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (which explains how to obtain the UUID). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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') and resource ('previously created application'), specifying that it initializes the container and makes it accessible. It distinguishes from 'create_application' by focusing on starting existing applications, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'restart_application' or 'start_service'.

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 context by mentioning 'previously created application' and referencing where to obtain the UUID, suggesting it should be used after creation. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'restart_application' or 'start_service', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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