azeth_update_service

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

With no annotations, description carries full disclosure burden effectively. Documents gas costs ('requires a transaction'), authorization ('Only the account owner'), prerequisites ('account must already be registered'), and return value ('Confirmation with transaction hash'). Missing only edge case/error behavior disclosure.

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?

Well-structured with clear semantic blocks: purpose, usage conditions, supported values, important limitations (catalogs), return type, prerequisites, and example. Each sentence delivers unique information. Minimally redundant with schema (only capabilities format overlaps slightly).

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 blockchain mutation operation with no output schema, coverage is strong: gas costs, ownership requirements, prerequisites, return format, and sibling relationships are all documented. Only lacks explicit error condition descriptions or idempotency notes.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds value by enumerating supported keys (redundant but scannable), emphasizing JSON array format for capabilities, and providing a concrete JSON usage example ('{"key": "endpoint", ...}') that clarifies the key-value structure.

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?

States specific action ('Update metadata') and resource ('registered service on the trust registry'). Explicitly distinguishes from sibling azeth_publish_service by noting this is for changes 'after initial registration', clarifying the update vs. create distinction.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when' clause with specific scenarios. Names prerequisite sibling tool (azeth_publish_service) for initial registration. Critically includes negative guidance ('Update your catalog...not via this tool') preventing common misuse.

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