set_service_hostname

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses it's a 'plain write' with 'no billing impact' and 'not destructive', but does not detail potential side effects like service restart or downtime, which would be helpful for a mutation operation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds necessary context. There is no fluff or repetition.

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 simple set operation with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and behavioral impact. It could mention whether a restart occurs, but overall it's sufficiently complete.

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 100% and already describes both parameters adequately. The description repeats information from the schema without adding new details, so it does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 explicitly states the action ('Set the hostname of a service') and specifies the resource type ('cloud VM or legacy VPS'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like stop_service or reinstall_service by focusing on hostname modification.

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 mentions the required scope ('services:write') and provides context for parameter sources ('service_id comes from list_services; hostname is a valid DNS hostname'). It implies usage is straightforward but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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