update_service

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond them: the atomic coupling between a status change and changelog creation, which tells the agent the two operations are transactional. It still omits whether unspecified fields in 'changes' are cleared and what permissions 'owned' requires.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the side-effect clause is placed where it will be read. It is arguably too terse for a destructive tool with a nested payload, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and a nested parameter object, the description leaves too much unstated: no field-level semantics, no replacement-vs-merge behavior, no return information. The changelog atomicity note is the one substantive addition.

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% and the tool has a nested 'changes' object with four properties and two enums, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions only 'status' obliquely ('a status change') and never explains partial-vs-full update semantics, allowed values, or the service_id format.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Update an ... service') and adds a scope qualifier ('owned') that distinguishes it from the unqualified create_service sibling. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation is implied by the verb rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'owned' signals the ownership prerequisite, and 'a status change creates a changelog atomically' implicitly tells the agent it should not separately call create_changelog_entry for a status change. No explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternatives are given.

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