Start, Stop, or Restart a Whatbox Service

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it introduces the concepts of allowlisting, fixed start scripts, bounded signals, and the human approval requirement for stop/restart. These details are not present in the annotations, which only provide boolean hints (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false). The description succeeds in disclosing important operational constraints.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second adds a critical constraint. There is no redundant information or filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool with no output schema and modest annotations, the description covers essential usage and a key safety condition, but it omits any details about return values, error handling, or side effects. The tool modifies service state, yet the description does not explain what happens after a successful start, whether commands are blocking, or how failures are reported. This leaves gaps for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate for parameter semantics, but it does not explicitly explain the 'service' and 'operation' fields. It vaguely references 'service' via 'allowlisted userland service' and mentions 'stop/restart' in the approval note, but it fails to map directly to the schema parameters or clarify their values. The enums are self-explanatory, but the description adds little value for understanding the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: controlling allowlisted userland services via start scripts and bounded process signals. The title explicitly lists start, stop, and restart, and the schema confirms the operation enum. It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like whatbox_services_status (status-only) and whatbox_torrent_control (torrent-specific).

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 implies when to use the tool (to control a service) and adds a key constraint (human approval for stop/restart), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. No guidance is given about when to prefer a sibling tool, such as using whatbox_services_status to check current state first.

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