service_update

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are present; description adds behavioral details: force redeploy bumps ForceUpdate counter, tasks redeploy with unchanged spec. No contradiction, and description enriches understanding 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?

Concise, well-structured: one-line summary followed by bullet-like details in args/returns format. Every sentence adds value. No redundant information.

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?

Covers main usage modes, parameter constraints, and expected return. Could mention prerequisite that service must exist, but that is implied. With output schema present, return value explanation 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage; parameters lack schema descriptions. The description fully compensates: explains id_or_name, mutual exclusivity of updates/force, and purpose of force parameter. Also documents return type.

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 it updates a swarm service's configuration or forces a redeploy. It distinguishes between two modes (updates vs force) and differentiates from sibling tools 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?

Explicitly instructs to pass exactly one of 'updates' or 'force=True'. Provides concrete use cases for force (reschedule after node change, re-pull mutable tag). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context is clear and no alternative tool is directly comparable.

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