manage_node_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only lists possible actions without explaining side effects (e.g., restart stops then starts), required permissions, error states, or return behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a state-changing tool.

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 efficient: one sentence for purpose followed by a bullet list of parameters with examples. No redundant information, and key information is front-loaded.

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 low complexity (3 simple params) and existence of an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and usage guidance, making it incomplete for a thorough understanding.

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 0%, but the description lists parameters with example service names (e.g., 'pvedaemon') and specific action values. This adds some meaning beyond the schema's generic string types, though more details like node format or action enumeration would be helpful.

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 can start, stop, restart, or reload a system service on a node, specifying the exact actions and resource. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that manage other resources like VMs or containers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_node_services or when not to use it (e.g., if the service doesn't exist). There is no mention of prerequisites or transitions from other tools.

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