service_manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It correctly highlights the sudo requirement, but lacks disclosure of other behavioral traits like immediate effects, idempotency, or error handling (e.g., what happens if service doesn't exist).

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 very concise, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by parameter details and a critical note. No unnecessary sentences.

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 management tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, and permissions. It could briefly mention when not to use (e.g., for read-only status), but is otherwise complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

Despite zero schema description coverage, the tool description fully compensates by providing parameter names, examples (service_name: e.g., 'nginx'), and all valid actions. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it manages a systemd service (verb+resource) and lists actions. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like service_status or services_list, though the action list implies management vs observation.

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 includes a crucial note about requiring sudo rights, which is good. But it does not provide when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., when to use service_manage vs service_status) or any alternative recommendations.

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