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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by clarifying that setting active=false performs a soft-delete/disable, which is non-destructive. This context complements the annotations well, though no contradiction.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word adds value; no redundancy. Ideal for agent quick parsing.

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?

With 8 parameters, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema (not shown but present), the description is adequate. It covers key update scenarios but does not mention partial updates or idempotency. Reasonably complete for a straightforward update 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 100% with all parameters documented. The description mentions 'price, description, or toggle active/inactive status' but omits other parameters like name, unit, category, priceMax, priceMin. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, earning baseline 3.

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 states the verb 'update' and the resource 'service in the catalog', and provides concrete examples like 'Change price, description, or toggle active/inactive status'. Among siblings (services.create, services.list), this is distinct and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like services.create or services.list. It does not mention prerequisites or contexts for use, leaving the agent to infer from the action. Lacks exclusion or comparison with siblings.

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