panelica_server_post_v1_server_services_name_start

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the required scopes (services:start, server:write) and explicitly saying 'Mutating: changes server state.' This is useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The additional lines for HTTP method, scopes, and mutating effect are useful, though the Category line adds limited value beyond the endpoint.

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 simple action endpoint with one required parameter, the description covers the action, precondition, auth requirements, and mutating effect. It does not explain the optional body parameter's purpose, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema documents both parameters, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, the 'body' parameter is only described as having no statically declared schema, and the description does not clarify whether or when a body is needed. This leaves a moderate ambiguity despite the high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Starts a specific service that was previously stopped.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling stop/restart operations, and the HTTP path reinforces the exact endpoint.

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 precondition 'previously stopped' provides clear context for when to use this tool, and the path name distinguishes it from restarting or stopping services. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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