service_update

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that force=True 'bumps the ForceUpdate counter' to trigger redeployment, and it states the return type. This goes beyond the basic hints and gives the agent a clearer expectation of side effects.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a succinct explanation of the two modes, then a compact args list. There is no filler or repetition. Every sentence adds information, and the structure makes the material easy to scan.

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 moderately complex tool with nested objects and a boolean return, the description covers the purpose, the two mutually exclusive parameter sets, the behavior of force redeploy, and the return value. Given that an output schema exists for the bool and annotations are present, this is a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage, the description takes on the full burden of documenting parameters. It provides an args section that explains id_or_name, updates, and force, and clarifies the mutual exclusivity constraint. The 'updates' field is described as using 'same parameters as service_create', which requires a cross-reference but is still actionable. This meaningfully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Update a swarm service's configuration, or force a redeploy with no spec change.' This clearly distinguishes the tool's core purpose from siblings like service_scale or service_rollback. The two operational modes are explicitly named, leaving no ambiguity about what the 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 description provides clear usage guidance for the tool's two modes, including the 'exactly one of updates/force' constraint and a concrete real-world example for force redeploy (rescheduling after a node change or re-pulling a mutable tag). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools (e.g., service_scale), so it misses an explicit exclusion statement.

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