service_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. While it explains timeout behavior, it omits critical behavioral traits for a tool that likely modifies service state.

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 concise at 3 sentences, with no superfluous language. It could be more front-loaded by stating the core action first, but overall it is efficient.

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 has 8 parameters (2 required) and no schema descriptions, the description should provide a complete overview. It focuses on timing parameters but omits the core function and required parameters. The presence of an output schema may partially compensate, but the description itself feels incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains the purpose of expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, check_after_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, and on_timeout, including the values for on_timeout. However, it does not explain the required parameters 'service' and 'action', or the 'user' parameter, leaving a gap.

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 implies the tool performs an action on a service with explicit timing control, but it never explicitly states the core function. It focuses on timing parameters and job management rather than stating 'perform an action on a service'. This leaves purpose 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 guidance on choosing on_timeout values for background vs synchronous work, but does not compare to sibling service tools (service_list, service_status, service_logs) or specify when this tool should be used over them. It gives partial usage context.

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