service_update

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful details like the ForceUpdate counter bump and the return type, but it does not disclose prerequisites, error conditions, or side effects such as rolling update behavior, which would be valuable for a mutation tool. The description carries some burden but is not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with an Args and Returns section, and the main purpose is front-loaded. It is concise enough, though it repeats the 'exactly one' constraint twice, which is a minor redundancy. Overall, it is efficient and 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 mutation tool with two modes and three parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to specify changes, and the force mode. It points to service_create for field details and declares the return type. Missing details like error handling or permissions are not critical for basic usage, and the output schema exists to clarify returns. It is fairly complete for typical agent invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It clearly defines `updates` and `force`, including the constraint of exactly one, and references `service_create` for valid fields. The required `id_or_name` is not described but its meaning is obvious from the tool's purpose. The description adds meaning beyond the schema for the optional parameters, though it leaves the field enumeration to another tool.

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 that the tool updates a swarm service's configuration or forces a redeploy, distinguishing it from siblings like service_create, service_scale, and service_rollback. It explicitly names the two operation modes, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs that exactly one of `updates` or `force` must be passed, and explains the use case for force (reschedule after node change, re-pull a mutable tag). It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like service_scale, but the Docker context implies when to use this tool, and the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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