services_start

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only discloses that a service is started. It does not mention side effects, permissions, whether the service must already exist, or what kind of response to expect.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is also under-specified. Most of the argument list merely repeats schema titles, and the inaccurate 'Required' note for confirm means that sentence does not earn its place.

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 mutating operation with no annotations and no usage guidance, this description is not complete. It lacks information about prerequisites, effects, acceptable service names, or any disambiguation from the surrounding service-management sibling tools.

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?

The description adds a small amount of meaning for 'service' by calling it a service name, but it incorrectly labels 'confirm' as 'Required' while the schema marks it as optional with a default of false. This is misleading and provides no real value beyond the schema.

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 the core action clearly with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a service.' This is enough to distinguish it from obvious siblings like services_stop, services_restart, and services_reload, though it does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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 use this tool versus the many related service tools such as services_list, services_stop, or services_reload. The description only says what it does, not when an agent should choose it over alternatives.

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