setup-services

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, destructive, or requires service restarts. For a configuration tool, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action. While it is concise, it could benefit from slightly more context without losing conciseness.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the effects of the configuration, such as whether it triggers service restarts or requires certain prerequisites. The description is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no other metadata.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the guidelines, when coverage is high, a baseline of 3 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?

The description 'Configure IP addresses for services' clearly indicates the verb (configure) and resource (IP addresses for services). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'setup-network' by specifying IP configuration for specific services as shown in the schema. However, it could be more explicit about the services involved.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'setup-network' or 'deploy-service'. There are no mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or relationships with other tools. The single phrase offers no usage context.

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