zadig_service_set_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully reveals that the tool defaults to dry_run=true and returns a diff, signaling a safe-by-default, non-destructive operation. It does not explain confirm/production semantics, but the disclosed default behavior is valuable context.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose comes first, and the critical default behavior follows immediately.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and 7 parameters, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to move from dry-run diff to an actual applied update, what confirm does, or what production/project_key refer to, so an agent lacks key invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the target relationship among image, container_name, and service_name. It leaves confirm, production, project_key, and the implications of dry_run=false unexplained, which is insufficient for 7 parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a precise resource ('one container image in service YAML'), and the scope 'one' distinguishes it from broader sibling operations like service_update_yaml or service_set_variable. An agent can reliably tell what this tool does.

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?

The purpose implies when to use it (updating a single container image), but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name competing sibling tools. This is adequate but not proactive routing.

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