update-service

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true, indicating safe repetition. The description adds context about what can be updated but does not detail whether the update is a full replace or merge, or what happens to unspecified fields. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that covers the purpose and key parameters. It is not overly long, but could benefit from a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability.

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 moderate complexity (3 params, 1 nested object) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally complete. It omits information about return values and does not contextualize usage among many sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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% for the three parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing concrete examples of what the 'config' object can contain (deployment source, Docker image, GitHub repo settings, ports, files, environment variables), which helps agents understand the parameter's 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update'), resource ('Bult service configuration'), and enumerates specific controllable aspects (deployment source, Docker image, GitHub settings, ports, files, environment variables). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create-service' or 'update-project'.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create-service', 'deploy-project', or other update tools. It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool would be preferable.

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