pve_node_service_control

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

Without annotations, the description compensates well by declaring mutation, async behavior, dry-run default, no auto-undo, and risk flagging. It could add details on error handling or response, but current coverage is strong.

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 (~100 words, 5 sentences) and front-loaded with the core verb 'MUTATION: start/stop/restart/reload'. Every sentence adds essential value without redundancy.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers critical safety and behavioral aspects (dry-run, risk, confirmation, async). It lacks per-parameter details but provides sufficient context for an informed agent.

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 low (20%), and the description adds meaning for 'confirm' (controls execution) and the dry-run aspect but does not detail other parameters like 'action' allowed values or 'node'. It partially compensates, but gaps remain.

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 action ('start/stop/restart/reload') and the resource ('service on a PVE node'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pve_node_services_list (listing) and pve_node_service_status (status) by focusing on mutation.

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 provides explicit guidelines: dry-run by default, risk assessment for critical services, no auto-undo, and need for confirm=True. It lacks explicit alternatives but gives sufficient context for safe use.

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