service_update

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

Annotations indicate non-readOnly and non-destructive, so the description adds value by explaining the two modes and return value. However, it does not detail side effects, permissions, or error conditions. With annotations, the bar is lower, and description adds moderate 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?

The description is concise with a front-loaded purpose, then clear sections for args and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose, no wasted words.

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 complexity of updating a swarm service and the presence of sibling tools like service_create, the description covers the main usage patterns and return value. It references service_create for details, which is appropriate. The output schema is not provided, but description states return type as bool, which is sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description compensates by explaining that 'updates' uses same parameters as service_create, and 'force' bumps the ForceUpdate counter. It adds meaning beyond the schema's bare properties.

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 updates a swarm service's configuration or forces a redeploy, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like service_create, service_scale, and service_rollback.

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 specifies when to use updates (change fields) vs force (redeploy without spec change), and gives an example of when force is useful (node change, re-pull). It does not explicitly exclude cases but provides clear context.

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