gateway_service_management

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It vaguely states 'handles' various resources but doesn't specify whether this includes create/update/delete operations (though the schema reveals this), what permissions are needed, whether operations are destructive, what happens on errors, or typical response formats. For a complex tool with 11 parameters and multiple resource types, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 brief (two sentences) but inefficiently structured. The first sentence is redundant with the tool name, and the second merely lists resource types without functional context. While concise, it fails to front-load critical information about the tool's purpose or usage, making it less helpful than it could be at this length.

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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, multiple resource types, CRUD operations), the description is inadequate. While there's an output schema (which helps), the description doesn't provide necessary context about the tool's scope, behavioral characteristics, or relationship to sibling tools. For a management tool with no annotations, the description should do much more to help an agent understand when and how to use it effectively.

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 the schema already documents all 11 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, when each is required, or provide examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with additional semantic context.

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 'Gateway service management tool. Handles services, service types, service clusters, service nodes, and routes' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name ('gateway_service_management') with slightly more detail. It lists resource types but lacks a specific verb or clear functional purpose. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'gateway_auth_management' or 'gateway_monitoring_management' beyond the resource domain.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 11 sibling tools including related ones like 'gateway_auth_management' and 'gateway_monitoring_management', there's no indication of this tool's specific scope, prerequisites, or appropriate use cases. The agent receives no help in choosing between these tools.

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