virtual_services_service

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 does include the output schema (Service Schema), which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether update mutates data), permissions required, error behavior, or response format for create/update. For a CRUD tool with mutation operations, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 well-structured with actions broken into read, list, create, and update, each with args. It front-loads the purpose and uses a consistent format. However, it is somewhat repetitive with 'Mandatory' repeated and includes the full Service Schema inline, which could be trimmed if already available as an output schema. Still, it earns a 4 for clarity and organization.

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?

The description covers all actions and parameter semantics, and includes the output schema, which is good. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools, does not mention the absence of a delete action (or any destructive operations), and provides no details on returns or errors. Given the tool's complexity (4 actions), it is adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral and comparative context.

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 input schema has an open 'args' object with 0% coverage, so the description fully compensates. Each action lists required parameters with types, defaults, and valid ranges (e.g., limit default=10, valid=[1 to 50]). It clearly maps parameters to actions, providing meaning far beyond the schema. Minor flaw: it labels optional parameters as 'required', but the information itself is detailed and helpful.

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 tool's purpose: 'Operations on services. Use this when a user needs to create, read, update, list, or select a service.' It lists specific verbs (create, read, update, list) and identifies the resource (service). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools that also mention services (e.g., virtual_services_virtual_service), so it misses the explicit sibling differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 provides a clear 'when to use' statement ('Use this when a user needs to create, read, update, list, or select a service'), but it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools. The action-specific args give context for each operation, but there is no explicit guidance on choosing this tool over similar service-related tools, so it falls short of a 4.

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