pve_ceph_service_start

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states this is a mutation (MUTATION), includes risk level (RISK_MEDIUM), explains the dry-run behavior, and mentions no durable status read exists. It also notes the return format for both dry-run and execution. However, it doesn't discuss authentication requirements or rate limits, which are minor omissions.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the mutation nature and dry-run behavior, then covers execution, reversal, and return format. Every sentence adds value.

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 (mutation, dry-run, risk medium, no rollback), the description is highly complete. It covers the action, behavior, return types, risk, and relation to sibling tools. The output schema exists but context signals don't detail it; however, the description covers the return format sufficiently.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value above the schema by explaining the default behavior for 'service' (defaults to 'ceph.target') and 'confirm' (default false returns PLAN). It doesn't add much for 'node' or 'proximo_target' beyond what's in the schema, but the overall parameter behavior is well-explained through the tool flow.

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 it's a mutation tool for starting Ceph services (systemd units matching `service`). It specifies the exact API call (POST /nodes/{node}/ceph/start) and distinguishes from siblings like pve_ceph_service_stop and pve_ceph_service_restart.

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 explicitly says to revert with pve_ceph_service_stop, provides dry-run behavior by default (confirm=False returns a PLAN), and explains that confirm=True executes the action. It also mentions no rollback primitive, guiding the agent to use the stop tool for reversal.

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