fx_resource_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies live mutation ('no servidor ativo em tempo real') but does not disclose whether stop/restart are destructive to running state, whether the operation blocks, whether confirmation or elevated permissions are needed, or what happens on failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource up front, followed by the action list. Efficient, though the parenthetical enumeration duplicates the schema enum and slightly pads the sentence.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain side effects and the conditional resource parameter. It leaves the agent without any indication of what the action returns or what state change to expect, which is a significant gap for a lifecycle-control tool.

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 action enum and the resource conditional-requirement note ('obrigatório para restart, start, stop, ensure; omitido para refresh') already live in the schema. The description's parenthetical action list merely repeats the enum, adding no new parameter meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb (executa ações de ciclo de vida) and resource (recursos no servidor ativo), and enumerates the supported actions. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like fx_create_resource or fx_list_resources, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as fx_manage_server_cfg or fx_server_status. The only usage hint ('em tempo real') is incidental and not framed as a selection condition.

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