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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect (creating a price history entry on price changes) and explains the null behavior for verificationLevel and qualityCapture. While it does not cover permissions or error cases, the most impactful behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 compact: three sentences deliver the main action, a side effect, and the nuanced override semantics without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then logically expands into details and edge cases.

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 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the intricate parts (delivery-verification overrides, history, null resets) but does not state the overall partial-update semantics for all fields or the shape of the response. Given the complexity, a little more on return value or behavior for unmentioned fields would improve completeness, but it is largely sufficient for most agents.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning for verificationLevel (enum values, reference to service_create) and qualityCapture (1–5 rating, null vs omit), but it contradicts the schema by describing qualityCapture as a rating while schema types it as boolean/null. Many parameters (orgSlug, serviceId, apiKey, etc.) remain unexplained, and this inconsistency prevents a higher score.

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 'Update an existing service' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the affected fields (price, duration, status, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like service_create by emphasizing 'existing' and directing users to service_create for semantics of verificationLevel. This makes the purpose 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?

It implicitly indicates when to use the tool (for updating an existing service) and excludes creation via the word 'existing'. It also explains how to reset fields to organization defaults (pass null) versus leaving them unchanged (omit), which helps decide parameter usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context and clear update semantics provide adequate guidance.

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