control-service

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly states mutability (start, stop, rebuild) but omits details like prerequisites, downtime impact, or reversibility. The trigger conditions for rebuild add some depth.

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 sentence that front-loads the core actions and includes useful context for rebuild. Efficient but could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the tool's purpose and specific use case for rebuild, though start/stop lack elaboration.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining when rebuild is appropriate (after changes to deployment, image, repo, env vars), which goes beyond the enum labels 'start, stop, rebuild'.

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 identifies the tool controls a service lifecycle with three specific actions: start, stop, rebuild. The resource ('Bult service') and verb ('Control') are present, though 'rebuild' is elaborated with triggers. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-service or delete-service by focusing on lifecycle management.

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 use after changes (deployment, image, repo, env vars) for rebuild, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use for start/stop. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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