update_project_services

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., container recreation, downtime), required permissions, or whether the operation is safe or destructive. With no annotations provided, the description fails to convey essential transparency for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly expanded to include important context without losing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (three parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'update services' entails—e.g., whether it recreates containers, applies changes immediately, or requires a restart. The sibling tools suggest a Docker Compose context, but the description lacks essential operational details for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters ('env_id', 'project_id', 'agent_token'). The description only mentions 'Compose project', but does not clarify which parameter identifies it. This provides no added value over the bare schema.

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 the action ('Update services') and the resource ('Compose project from the current compose config'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_project' which updates the entire project configuration.

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?

No guidance is provided on when or when not to use this tool. There are no mentions of prerequisites, alternative tools, or scenarios where this operation is inappropriate. Sibling tools like 'deploy_project' or 'project_down' could be alternatives, but no comparison is given.

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