winops_svc_start

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds the behavior of waiting for running state and the return format, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., service dependencies, failure behavior if service doesn't start, or whether it blocks until timeout). The return format is provided, which adds transparency, but the description could be richer about what happens on failure or timeout.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a return format section and an example, which are useful. The example is minimal but effective. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the description from the return format), but overall it's efficient with no wasted words.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 params, output schema provided, annotations present), the description is fairly complete. It explains the main behavior (start and wait), provides the return format, and gives an example. The output schema covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them. The main gap is lack of error handling or edge-case behavior, but for a service start tool, this is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly in most cases.

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 parameters (service_name and wait_timeout) are already documented in the schema. The description adds the example using service_name='wuauserv' and implies the wait_timeout behavior via 'wait for it to reach running state', but it doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start a Windows service and wait for it to reach running state.' This is a specific verb (start) plus resource (Windows service) and includes the key behavior of waiting for running state, which distinguishes it from siblings like winops_svc_stop, winops_svc_restart, and winops_svc_status.

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 context (starting a service and waiting for it to be running) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like winops_svc_restart or winops_svc_stop. It also doesn't mention prerequisites like administrative privileges or that the service must exist. The examples provide a basic usage pattern but no exclusions or alternative guidance.

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