kaiten_update_sd_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely says 'Update', implying mutation, but it does not describe partial-update semantics, required permissions, side effects on existing services, or behavior around archival/visibility.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it under-specifies for a tool with 17 parameters; still, there is no wasted text.

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, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It omits return value information, side effects, and any operational context an agent would need beyond the schema.

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%, so every one of the 17 parameters already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update a Service Desk service.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like kaiten_get_sd_service, kaiten_create_sd_service, and kaiten_delete_sd_service by indicating the update operation on the Service Desk service resource.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only conveys the basic action; it does not mention exclusions, prerequisities, or compare with other update_* siblings like kaiten_update_sd_request or kaiten_update_sd_settings.

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