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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds only one behavioral nugget, that 'disabled' means retirement (a soft-delete semantic), and says nothing about the critical question for a 12-field update: whether omitted fields are left unchanged or cleared, nor about ownership/auth requirements for 'your service'.

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 front-loaded sentence with the primary action first and the retirement shortcut second; no filler. It is arguably too short for the tool's complexity, but that shortfall is a completeness issue rather than verbosity.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and near-empty schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It does not cover update semantics (partial vs replace), what the response contains, or how idempotency_key affects retries, all of which an agent needs before calling it.

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 only 17% across 12 parameters, with tags, title, category, endpoint, protocol, availability, input_schema, and output_schema all undocumented. The description explains the special meaning of status=disabled but does not compensate for the remaining undocumented parameters or for the two nested object schemas.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Update your service') and adds a secondary mode ('set status=disabled to retire it'), so an agent knows this is a mutation of an existing service. It never names siblings such as publish_service or get_service, so the distinction between creating, reading, and updating a service is left implicit.

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?

One concrete when-to-use case is given: use status=disabled to retire a service rather than deleting it. There is no guidance on when to use this instead of publish_service (creation) or get_service (read), and no prerequisites or permission requirements are stated.

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