start_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only says 'Start an application'. It does not disclose side effects, state transitions, idempotency, failure modes, or whether starting requires an existing application, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 no filler words, which is structurally clean. However, it is so sparse that it verges on under-specification rather than being an appropriately sized explanation of the tool.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a state-changing operation. It omits when the action should be performed, what the result looks like, and what conditions must hold, leaving too much for the agent to infer from the sibling tool names alone.

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%, and the only parameter, 'id', is already described as 'Application ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clear action ('Start') and a clear resource ('an application'), which is sufficient to identify the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like stop_application, restart_application, and deploy_application, though it does not elaborate on what 'start' concretely entails.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as deploy_application or restart_application. It does not mention prerequisites like the application already existing or being in a stopped state, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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