update-service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'WRITE OPERATION: changes PCE state,' which is the most important behavioral trait. It also discloses the approval-gating behavior in Claude Desktop/Claude Code and warns that the call 'has not failed and must not be retried while waiting.' This is exceptionally useful and prevents an agent from making a dangerous retry.

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 tightly packed sentences. The first sentence states the action and identification strategy, the second flags the write nature, and the third warns about approval gating and retry. Every sentence earns its place with no filler 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers the essential call-time knowledge: what is updated, how to identify the target, that state changes, and how to handle approval pauses. It does not explicitly explain the effect of omitting fields, but the schema already documents replacement semantics for the array parameters. A short note on 'unspecified fields remain unchanged' would make it fully 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters thoroughly. The description adds only the guidance that href is preferred over name, which is a minor semantic clarification. No additional parameter-level meaning is missing because the schema already explains fields, nesting, and replacement semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing service in the PCE.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from create-service, delete-service, and update-* tools targeting other resources like workloads or rulesets. The identification mechanism (href preferred or name) further clarifies scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when updating an existing service in the PCE, identified by href or name. It also implicitly distinguishes from creation by saying 'existing service.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource-specific language is enough for typical routing.

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