services_send_command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds only the HTTP path and the opaque token "pm"; it says nothing about what the command execution can destroy, whether the service is stopped/restarted, or what authorization is required — gaps that matter for a destructive remote-execution 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 definition is short and front-loads the action, which is good, but the second clause ("to service pm with service") is ungrammatical noise rather than information, so the brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than from efficiency.

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 destructive, non-idempotent command-execution tool with three required parameters at 0% schema documentation and no output schema, the description does not supply enough for an agent to invoke it correctly: the body payload contract and valid command values remain unknown.

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 0% for all three required parameters. The endpoint template implicitly maps id and command to path segments, which is modest added meaning, but the required "body" parameter is entirely unexplained (format, encoding, payload shape), leaving the most error-prone input undocumented.

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 names a verb and resource ("Send command to service") and exposes the endpoint POST /services/{id}/command/{command}, so the general operation is inferable. However, the phrase "service pm with service" is garbled and leaves the target resource ambiguous, and nothing distinguishes this from the sibling services_send_serviceless_command.

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, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would pick this tool over services_send_serviceless_command or any other services_* tool.

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