pve_node_service_restart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Restart a service' implies a mutation operation that could disrupt service availability, but it doesn't disclose critical details like whether it requires root/admin privileges, if it's idempotent, potential side effects on dependent services, or error handling. It lacks transparency for a tool that performs system-level actions.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary verbiage. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, but as a standalone assessment of conciseness, it's optimal.

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?

Given the complexity of restarting a system service (a mutation with potential operational impact), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'restart' entails (e.g., stop-then-start), expected outcomes, error conditions, or safety considerations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both 'node' and 'service' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid service names or node naming conventions. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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 'Restart a service' states a basic action but lacks specificity about what resource it operates on (a service on a Proxmox VE node) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_node_service_start', 'pve_node_service_stop', or 'pve_node_service_reload'. It's a tautology that mostly restates the tool name without adding meaningful context.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like starting, stopping, or reloading services, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing appropriate permissions or the service being in a restartable state. The description offers no usage context.

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