pve_node_service_stop

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. 'Stop a service' implies a destructive action that halts a running process, but it doesn't specify consequences (e.g., service downtime, potential impact on dependent systems), permissions required, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the service is already stopped). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 ('Stop a service'), making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary details. Every word contributes directly to the core purpose, earning its place without waste, which is ideal for brevity.

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 tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical information such as behavioral effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it safely and effectively. This is inadequate for a mutation tool in a system management context.

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 parameter names ('node', 'service') and descriptions ('Node name', 'Service name'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints (e.g., valid service names). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Stop a service' clearly states the verb ('Stop') and resource ('a service'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what type of service (e.g., system service on a Proxmox VE node) or distinguish it from similar tools like 'pve_node_service_start' or 'pve_node_service_restart' among the siblings, leaving it somewhat vague.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the service must be running), when to choose this over 'pve_node_service_restart' or 'pve_stop_vm', or any exclusions (e.g., cannot stop critical services). This lack of context makes it difficult for an agent to apply it correctly.

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