service_start

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that this is a write operation needing secondary confirmation, states that confirm must equal the service name, and documents the exact error code CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED. It also previews state_before/state_after and output fields, which helps the agent anticipate side effects and return behavior.

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 well-organized and front-loaded, opening with the operation type and confirmation requirement before listing parameters. The return-structure block is useful but somewhat redundant given that an output schema exists, which prevents a perfect conciseness score.

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?

The description covers the core invocation contract, confirmation logic, error behavior, and return shape, so an agent can call the tool correctly. It is slightly incomplete in not mentioning prerequisites such as service existence or permissions, and it does not route the agent to related service tools for discovery.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: name is the service name, and confirm must match the service name to execute. This is essential semantic information that the bare input schema does not provide.

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 a specific action and resource: '启动指定服务' (start the specified service), and further marks it as a write operation requiring confirmation. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like service_stop or service_restart.

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 intended use is implied: use this tool to start a service and provide confirmation. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings such as service_restart or service_status, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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