update_service

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'Update' but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it triggers a rolling update, replaces config entirely, or requires swarm mode. Adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Extremely concise: one line for purpose, two lines for parameters, one line for return. Front-loaded and 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?

Description covers purpose, parameters, and return type. For a simple update tool with 2 params and an output schema (returning bool), it is mostly complete. Could add context about how updates merge with existing configuration.

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 updates as 'Fields to update on the service', adding meaning beyond schema. However, the 'updates' object lacks any structural detail, leaving ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a swarm service's configuration.' The verb 'Update' and resource 'swarm service's configuration' are specific. Distinguishes from siblings like force_update_service and rollback_service.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as force_update_service, scale_service, or rollback_service. Usage is implied but lacks context for optimal selection.

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