set_package_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Start or stop' without elaborating on effects of already being in that state, failure modes, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 is front-loaded with the core action, followed by parameter details in a clear bullet-style list.

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 simplicity of the tool (start/stop a package) and the existence of an output schema (which would cover return info), the description covers the essential functionality. However, lacking behavioral transparency slightly reduces completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds critical meaning by specifying allowed values for action ('start' or 'stop') and providing an example for package_id ('e.g. WebStation, DownloadStation'). This compensates for the lack of enums in the schema.

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 'Start or stop an installed package,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like set_container_state or set_vm_state, which operate on different resource types.

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 usage context is implied (when you want to control a package's state), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., package must be installed), and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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