pve_node_service_start

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Start a service' implies a mutation operation that changes system state, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions (e.g., root access), potential side effects (e.g., service dependencies), or error conditions (e.g., if the service is already running). The description is minimal and fails to provide necessary operational context.

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: 'Start a service'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 starting a system service (a mutation operation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like success/failure responses, error handling, or operational constraints. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective tool use is lacking.

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 parameters ('node' and 'service'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid node or service name, or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'Start a service' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'pve_node_service_start' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'Start' and resource 'a service', but lacks specificity about what kind of service (e.g., system service on a Proxmox VE node) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'pve_node_service_stop' or 'pve_node_service_restart' beyond the obvious action difference.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the service must be stopped), when it's appropriate (e.g., after maintenance), or what alternatives exist (e.g., 'pve_node_service_restart' for restarting a running service). This leaves the agent with no contextual cues for tool selection.

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