pmg_service_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It identifies the tool as a mutation (MEDIUM risk), specifies actions, and includes a concrete warning about service interruption. It could be improved by noting authorization requirements or rate limits, but the provided warning is valuable.

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 four sentences, with important information front-loaded (mutation label, actions, dry-run default). The structure flows logically from general behavior to specifics to warnings, with no redundant or superfluous text.

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 (5 parameters, mutation, no annotations), the description covers the core usage well. It does not describe the output, but an output schema exists which mitigates this gap. The description is sufficient for basic invocation but could be more complete regarding the 'node' parameter and error conditions.

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 only 20% (only proximo_target described). The description compensates by giving examples for the 'service' parameter and enumerating valid values for 'action'. It also clarifies the 'confirm' parameter's role. However, it does not explain the 'node' parameter, which is optional but could be important.

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 the tool's purpose: control (start, stop, restart, reload) a PMG service. It is explicitly labeled as a 'MUTATION', distinguishing it from the read-only sibling 'pmg_service_status' and the PVE-specific 'pve_node_service_control'.

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 explains the default dry-run behavior and the need for confirm=True to execute, providing clear usage context. It also mentions the prerequisite 'PROXIMO_PMG_* config'. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives like pmg_service_status for status checks.

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