force_update_service

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the key behavioral trait of forcing an update regardless of config change, but does not detail side effects (e.g., service restart), permissions, or rate limits. Some additional value beyond annotations.

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 brief with two lines of purpose and then clearly separated args and returns. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given the simple interface (one param, bool return) and existence of output schema, the description covers basic usage. However, completeness is lacking in usage guidance compared to related sibling tools, and no information about prerequisites or side effects.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains service_id as 'The service id or name' and specifies return type as bool. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though no further details on format or validation.

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 'Force update a swarm service even if its config has not changed', using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like update_service by highlighting the 'even if config not changed' condition.

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 implies when to use (when config hasn't changed but an update is needed) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like update_service or rollback_service. No prerequisites or context provided.

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