update_service

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description adds real value: content changes trigger re-embedding while toggling only `active` does not, and the service image is never modified by this API. These are non-obvious side effects an agent should know before writing. It stops short of describing latency/async behavior of re-embedding or error conditions.

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?

Four short sentences, zero filler, with the core operation and partial-update semantics front-loaded and the caveats following. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

For an 11-parameter mutation with low schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the most surprising behavior (re-embedding) and one hard constraint (image untouched). It leaves unclear what is returned, whether re-embedding is synchronous, and how nullable fields (currency, category_id, duration_minutes) behave on update.

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 11 parameters and only 27% schema description coverage, most fields (name, price, price_unit, category_id, duration_minutes, display_order) get no explanation in either place. The description explains the side-effect distinction for `active` versus content fields, which is useful, but it does not define what counts as "content" among the parameters or cover the remaining undocumented fields.

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?

"Update a service. Partial update." states a specific verb plus resource and clarifies the mutation style (partial, not full replacement). It clearly separates itself from create_service/delete_service/get_service siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

"Partial update" implicitly tells the caller to send only the fields being changed, which is actionable guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., create_service vs. update_service), no prerequisite/permission notes, and no statement about what happens to omitted fields.

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