manage_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the actions without explaining side effects, required confirmations, permissions, or the impact of a dry run. The mutating nature is implicit but not elaborated.

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 a single, succinct sentence that immediately lists all supported actions. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

The tool has multiple parameters and an output schema, but the description lacks the necessary detail to invoke it correctly. It does not explain how to select an action (likely via payload) or the meaning of dry_run and confirm_write, leaving significant gaps for a mutating service management 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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate by explaining parameters like payload, dry_run, and confirm_write, but it makes no mention of them. The agent receives no guidance on how to specify which action to perform or what values these parameters accept.

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 specifies the tool's function: pausing, resuming, restarting, shutting down, or starting up a FairCom service. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_services by describing actions rather than observation.

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 for service lifecycle management by listing the available actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide context about prerequisites or exclusions. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it complements listing tools.

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