Update service

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

It discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: PATCH semantics (omitted fields keep current values), inability to change service type, and that schedule/build changes do not auto-deploy. This enriches the sparse annotation set with critical operational context.

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 a single, well-organized paragraph that flows from action to API, then to usage rules, deploy caveat, and example. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the complex nested schema and absence of an output schema, the description covers the operation, key constraints, and follow-up actions thoroughly. It gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional documentation.

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 schema description coverage at only 11%, the description compensates by explaining the `serviceDetails` branch structure, the type-matching constraint, and providing a concrete JSON example. It clarifies the most complex parameter in a way the raw schema cannot.

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 'Update service' and explicitly identifies the API call `PATCH /services/{serviceId}`, specifying the exact resource and operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like render_restart_service or render_scale_service by describing the general update endpoint.

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 explicit usage instructions: match the `serviceDetails` branch to the existing service type, read the service first if unsure, send only changed fields, and call `render_create_deploy` when a rebuild is needed. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including a named alternative.

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