Start Cube

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the key behavioral trait that the operation is asynchronous. However, it does not explain what 'asynchronous' means in practice—how completion is observed, whether errors surface immediately, or what the response contains.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and target state before the asynchronous qualifier. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: mutation, idempotency, and asynchronous execution. It could be more complete by advising verification via get_cube, but the low complexity and strong schema coverage make the current definition adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents cubeId and spaceId sufficiently. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which the rubric treats as acceptable at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Start') with a clear resource ('Cube') and a precise precondition ('stopped'), which distinguishes it from siblings like create_cube (new resource) and restart_cube (already running state). The parenthetical 'asynchronous' adds an important behavioral qualifier.

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 word 'stopped' gives explicit context for when the tool applies, setting it apart from operations on running cubes. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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