pikvm_service

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses which actions are destructive (stop, disable) and which units are dangerous to restart (kvmd, kvmd-nginx, kvmd-otg, ssh, networking), plus the confirmation guard. It does not say what happens on failure, whether actions are idempotent, or what privileges the SSH connection needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then tight enumerations of actions and units, then the safety constraint. The closing sentence is a run-on that mixes action names with unit names, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the mutating nature of the tool is covered adequately. However, for a destructive multi-target tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the undocumented `server` and `confirm` parameters and the absent failure behavior leave real gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents action values and unit naming well and explains confirm_phrase's required value, but leaves `server` and the `confirm` boolean entirely unexplained, and never clarifies how `confirm` relates to `confirm_phrase`, leaving 2 of 5 parameters ambiguous.

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 pair (check/control) and resource (a service on PiKVM over SSH), and the action/unit lists make clear this is systemd unit management rather than power control or arbitrary shell access. It does not explicitly name the siblings it is not (e.g. pikvm_power, pikvm_ssh), so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Enumerates every valid action and shows the unit-naming convention with concrete examples, and it calls out the exact conditions under which confirm_phrase is mandatory. No explicit 'use X instead when Y' routing to sibling tools, which keeps it below a 5.

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