Start Service

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

Annotations only declare that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the key omitted fact that it requires sudo (elevated privileges) and is restricted to system scope, neither of which appears in the structured fields. It still omits behavior when the service is already running or missing, but it meaningfully exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Two terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two constraints (sudo and scope). No filler, and every clause carries operational information.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema this is close to sufficient: the agent knows the action, the privilege requirement, and the scope. What is missing is idempotency and failure behavior (e.g., service already running, nonexistent service, blocking vs non-blocking), which matters for a state-changing operation whose annotations cover only safety hints.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already described as 'Service name', so the description adds no syntax, format, or naming-convention details. With one fully documented parameter, the baseline of 3 for schema-covered params is appropriate.

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 (Start) and resource (system service), and narrows scope with 'System scope only', which distinguishes it from a user-scoped start. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like service_restart or service_enable, so the routing signal is clear but not complete.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb — start a currently stopped service — and the 'system scope only' constraint rules out user services. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over service_enable (boot persistence) or service_restart, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from sibling names.

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