set_file_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It discloses the mutation action (enable/disable) but omits behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects on active connections, or system impact.

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 short and to the point, containing one main sentence plus a parameter list. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, though the embedded '[control]' tag is superfluous.

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?

For a simple two-parameter setter, the description covers the fundamental action and parameters. However, it does not describe the return value or confirm success, which would improve completeness given the tool's mutation nature.

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?

The description adds meaning to the parameters beyond the schema: lists valid values for 'service' and clarifies 'enabled' as a boolean toggle. However, with 0% schema coverage, more detail would be beneficial.

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 action: enable or disable a file-sharing protocol. It specifies the protocol types (smb, afp, nfs, ftp). This distinguishes it from sibling getter tools like 'get_file_services'.

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 implies usage when toggling file-sharing services but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide context on prerequisites or aftereffects.

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