zadig_service_update_variables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the operation is mutating and requires confirm=true, and 'Replace all service variables' communicates the destructive impact on existing variables. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover all potential side effects like production scope.

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 only two short sentences, front-loading the purpose before the warning. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It omits the structure of service_variable_kvs, the role of the production flag, and whether project_key is needed, leaving an agent uncertain about how to construct a valid call.

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 for parameter documentation. It only addresses the 'confirm' parameter, leaving service_variable_kvs format, project_key, and production semantics unexplained. This is a significant gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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 ('Replace') and a clear resource ('all service variables'), which precisely identifies the tool's action. The scope 'all' distinguishes it from sibling tools like zadig_service_set_variable, which likely handles individual variables.

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 description provides clear context: this tool is for replacing all service variables and requires confirm=true. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, so it falls short of a full 5.

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