start_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Start a service' only names the action; it does not indicate that this is a state-changing operation, whether it is reversible, if it has side effects (e.g., resource consumption), or what happens if the service is already running. No such detail is offered.

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 extremely short (two words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks necessary context that an agent would expect for a state-changing tool, such as effect, timing, or return value. The brevity here is a deficiency, not an asset.

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 simplicity of the schema (one param) and no output schema, the description still fails to explain the operational context: Is this synchronous? What does 'start' imply? Are there prerequisites? An agent calling this blindly would have no idea what to expect. The description is minimal and incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'id' with a description of 'Service ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no further semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. No compensation is needed given the schema's completeness.

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 'Start a service' uses a specific verb and resource, which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'start_application' or clarify whether it affects a single service or multiple. It states the core action but lacks scope or distinction.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stop_service' or 'list_services'. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate. The description leaves the decision entirely to the agent's inference.

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