Akcja na usludze serwera

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

The description adds a valuable safety warning beyond the annotations: stopping a service is destructive and requires the --allow-destructive flag. This is consistent with destructiveHint=false in the default case, since the destructive path is gated behind an explicit flag, so no contradiction is present.

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 sentences deliver all key information: the action scope, the supported services, and the critical destructive-operation caveat. There is no filler, and the most important operational constraint is placed second for emphasis.

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 four-parameter tool whose schema already documents every field, the description covers the service domain, available actions, and the main safety constraint. It does not describe the return value, but there is no output schema and the action semantics are otherwise clear.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the stop action is destructive and gated by a flag, which is not evident from the action enum alone.

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 uses a clear action verb set (restart, start, stop) with a specific resource type: services on a server. It further names the exact supported services, which distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting servers, sites, or commands.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a supported service needs restarting, starting, or stopping. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as forge_run_command or forge_server_action, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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