service_action_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the write-permission requirement, implying a mutating operation, but says nothing about the disruptive impact of stopping a service, whether state is recoverable, or failure modes.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: the operation comes first and the prerequisite second. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool has only two required parameters. The remaining gap is the absence of any warning about mutation side effects for an annotation-free write tool.

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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description implicitly enumerates valid 'action' values (start/stop/restart), which is genuinely useful, but leaves 'name' ambiguous — service name versus display name — and offers no format hints.

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 gives a specific verb set (start, stop, restart) and resource (Windows service), which clearly separates it from the read-only sibling list_windows_services. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling as the alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

'Requires --allow-write' states a prerequisite for use, which is useful gating context. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over kill_process_tool or list_windows_services, nor on what conditions should steer an agent away from restarting a service.

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