manage_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operations without mentioning the impact of stopping/restarting a live server, potential downtime, required permissions, or whether the action returns any feedback. This is a mutation tool, and the description does not warn about consequences beyond the literal action.

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 short sentence that communicates the tool's full purpose with no filler. Every word is necessary and the key actions are front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool with an explicit enum.

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 one-parameter enum tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic calling contract. However, it lacks operational context: no mention of side effects, expected return value, or any caution around restarting a production server. Given the tool can disrupt server availability, the description should at least hint at that context, making it minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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%: the single parameter is fully documented with an enum and a description. The tool description merely repeats the enum values ('Start, Stop or Restart') without adding new meaning, so the 3 baseline for high schema coverage applies. It adds no extra syntax or semantic nuance beyond what 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?

The description states a clear action set (Start, Stop, Restart) applied to a specific resource (SAMP server process). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_status or audit_performance because it directly manages the server lifecycle rather than observing it. Slight deduction for using the broad verb 'manage' rather than a more specific verb, but the enumerated actions remove ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_status or get_server_diagnostics. The description simply states what it does and offers no contextual cues, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer that any start/stop/restart need should route here, but the description never explicitly says that.

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