set_server_service

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it toggles exactly one service, but it does not disclose permissions, immediacy of effect, or whether the change is persisted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The Services tab analogy is useful and compact.

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 toggle tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves usage alternatives and the device/port parameter relationships underspecified for a mutation with required parameters.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate. It implies the server (device), service, and enabled/on-off parameters, but it does not mention the optional port parameter or clarify the service enum values beyond what the schema already lists.

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?

States a specific verb (switch), resource (service), scope (one service of a server), and operation mode (on/off). It is clearly distinguishable from list_server_services and configure_* siblings, but it does not explicitly name or contrast them.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The Services tab reference implies a UI analogue but does not tell an agent when to choose this over list_server_services or configure_dns_server.

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