put_service_lines_by_service_line_number_nickname

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds the required permission ('Service plan, Edit'), which is useful beyond annotations, but does not discuss idempotency, side effects, or overwrite behavior.

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 concise, consisting of a single line with purpose, permission, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action, but the endpoint URL is redundant with the tool name.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers basic functionality and permissions. However, it lacks context about when to use this vs. other service line PUT tools (e.g., for product or public IP).

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions (serviceLineNumber, nickname). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 clearly states 'Set service line nickname', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling PUT operations (e.g., product, public_ip) by targeting only the nickname field.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other PUT operations on service lines. The required permission is mentioned, but no when-not-to-use or context for selection.

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