service_update

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

Annotations mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate that this mutates. It adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining that force 'bumps the ForceUpdate counter' and redeploys tasks with an unchanged spec, and it documents the return value.

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 the purpose, then explains the two modes, then provides a compact arg list and return type. The example use cases for force earn their place, making the length appropriate.

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?

The two update modes, the exclusivity constraint, and the simple bool return are all covered; an output schema exists so return details need no further expansion. The only minor gap is unspecified behavior if both updates and force are supplied, but 'exactly one' strongly implies rejection.

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 compensates by listing all three args: id_or_name, updates, and force, including the mutually exclusive constraint. It also references service_create for the full set of updatable fields, giving the agent a path to complete parameter understanding.

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 'Update a swarm service's configuration, or force a redeploy with no spec change,' giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like service_create, service_scale, and service_rollback by stating its two modes.

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?

It instructs to 'Pass exactly one of updates or force,' clarifying mutually exclusive usage, and gives concrete force use cases (reschedule after node change, re-pull mutable tag). It does not explicitly name alternatives like service_scale, so it falls short of 5.

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