Manage Service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not contradicting them, but it adds nothing beyond repeating the action list. It never mentions privilege/root requirements, that stop and disable are the destructive actions versus start/restart being comparatively safe, cross-platform behavioral differences, or what the caller gets back.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, which is good. However, the included 'CONCEPT:SM-OS.deployment.package-service-mutation' fragment is opaque tagging that consumes space without informing an agent about behavior or usage.

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?

An output schema exists and both parameters are documented, so the mechanical call requirements are covered. For a destructive, privileged system-mutation tool with zero annotation explanation of permissions or blast radius, the description should still say what happens on disable/stop and what privileges are needed; it does not.

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% and the schema already enumerates the five action values and describes service_name. The description's action list mirrors the schema rather than adding constraint detail such as case sensitivity, service name format, or platform-specific naming conventions, so baseline 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 first sentence names a specific resource (services) and enumerates the concrete operations (start/stop/restart/enable/disable), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from read-only siblings like list_services or health_check. The trailing 'CONCEPT:SM-OS.deployment.package-service-mutation' line is internal taxonomy jargon that adds no discriminating power.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this tool over siblings such as sm_service_operations or list_services, and no prerequisites stated. Crucially, nothing tells the agent when NOT to use it — e.g. that stop/disable on a critical service can take down dependent workloads.

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