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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: a restart briefly interrupts the service and the sites behind it, and stop is intentionally excluded. It omits any note on auth requirements or what the response returns.

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 'WRITE:' prefix front-loads the mutation nature, and each of the five short sentences carries distinct information (operations, impact, exclusion, realName source, endpoint). Zero filler.

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?

With a fully described 3-parameter schema and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, its side effect, the excluded action, where to get the service identifier, and the target endpoint. Nothing material is missing for a mutation tool of this scope.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, and the description adds provenance for the required real_name (obtain it from runcloud_list_services) plus format examples, and reiterates the action enum. That provenance guidance is useful beyond the schema, though it repeats the enum and examples the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb set (systemctl start/restart/reload) and resource (one service on a server), names concrete examples (nginx-rc, php81rc-fpm), and gives the underlying endpoint PATCH /servers/{id}/services. The 'WRITE:' prefix and the sibling reference to runcloud_list_services distinguish it clearly from read-oriented siblings.

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?

It routes the agent to runcloud_list_services to supply realName, and explicitly notes that 'stop' is deliberately not offered, which is genuine when-not guidance. It does not, however, help the agent choose between start vs restart vs reload, so the action-selection logic is left implicit.

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