opnsense_control_service

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

Discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: the write-permission requirement, specific disruptive effects (DNS breakage, VPN tunnel drops), and error handling (write-disabled explanation, 403 privilege message). This significantly exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, warnings, args, returns, and errors. Each sentence provides necessary operational detail without fluff.

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 (write operation, multiple parameters, side effects), the description covers all essential aspects: permissions, consequences, parameter guidance, return values, and error cases. This is complete for effective use.

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 description lists all nested parameters with examples and clarifications (service_id for multi-instance, response_format options). It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining behavior, such as 'default: ""' and the impact of response_format on chaining values.

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 'Start, stop or restart a service on the firewall.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from siblings like opnsense_list_services (read-only). The tool's purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context: requires OPNSENSE_ALLOW_WRITE=true, warns about disruptive effects, and instructs to confirm intent before action='stop'. Also references opnsense_list_services for service id (implicitly via schema). However, it doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' alternatives.

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