setup_services

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful behavioral facts: 'research is always on' (an immovable constraint) and the requirement to consult the user first. It does not say what happens to unspecified services, whether toggling is reversible, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Three short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. Minor waste in 'Returns setup_status', which restates the declared output schema, but the size is well-matched to the tool's simplicity.

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 not be explained, and the tool has only two optional parameters. The critical missing piece is the set of valid service names — nothing in the schema, annotations, or description tells the agent what values are legal.

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%, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It conveys the on/off polarity that maps to 'enable'/'disable', but never names the parameters nor enumerates the valid service identifiers accepted by those arrays, leaving the agent unable to construct a correct call.

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 verb phrase 'Turn services on or off' states an action on a resource, and the parenthetical '(research is always on)' adds a scope detail. But 'services' is never enumerated, and the tool sits among a dense cluster of similarly named setup_* siblings (setup_status, setup_set, setup_approvals, setup_credentials) with no differentiation from 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?

'Ask the user which ones they want first' is an actionable interaction instruction that tells the agent how to sequence the call. However, there is no when-to-use vs. alternatives guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of when this tool should not be used.

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