Update Service

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that only included fields are changed (partial update), which is consistent. It also discloses that env vars are not managed, adding context beyond annotations. Could mention potential side effects like redeployment, but overall transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage hint, third provides exclusion and alternative. No redundancy, every sentence serves a purpose. Front-loaded with key 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?

Given 17 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key usage patterns and exclusions. It tells how to use (get current first, partial update) and what not to do (env vars). Could mention what the response looks like or success indicators, but it's fairly complete for an update operation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the partial update pattern ('Only include fields you want to change') and clarifying that environment variables are not handled in this tool, which guides parameter usage. This exceeds the baseline.

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 tool updates an existing service configuration ('Update an existing service configuration'), uses a specific verb ('Update'), and distinguishes from siblings like create_service and deploy_service by focusing on existing resources. It also implies a partial update pattern ('Only include fields you want to change').

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use get_service to see current values first' tells when to use before update. Exclusion: 'Environment variables are NOT managed here — use the partiri CLI (see use_partiri_cli)' clearly states when not to use and points to an alternative sibling tool.

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