service_stop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it says almost nothing: no indication that stopping a service is disruptive, whether it requires root/sudo, whether it blocks until shutdown completes, or how it handles dependent units. The single adjective 'running' is the only behavioral hint.

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?

One front-loaded sentence starting with the action verb, with zero filler or redundancy. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the verb or resource.

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?

This is a privileged mutation (stopping a live service) with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description omits permissions, disruption risk, and side effects. The schema covers inputs adequately, but the behavioral surface needed for safe invocation is essentially absent.

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 both 'host' and 'name' are already documented with examples. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (stop) and resource (systemd service), which naturally distinguishes it from container siblings like docker_stop and from service_start/service_restart. No explicit sibling routing is given, but the resource qualifier makes the target unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. elevated privileges), and no mention of alternatives such as service_restart or docker_stop. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word 'systemd'.

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