convert_service

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: the change is saved to the database, applied asynchronously by the scheduler, and the tool cannot confirm the service is live. That async caveat is exactly the kind of context an agent needs for a mutation whose effect is delayed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the deletion alternative and the async behavior caveat. Every sentence adds useful information with no repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and the delayed-application caveat. Minor gaps remain, such as error behavior or permission requirements, but the core context needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful domain context by naming the two target states, online and draft, which the schema does not specify via enum or description. This helps the agent infer valid convert_to values.

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 uses a precise verb and resource: 'Switch a service between online and draft.' It also explicitly distinguishes the operation from deletion by naming delete_service, so an agent can tell this is a state-change tool, not a removal tool.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use versus delete_service: use this to change state without deleting. However, it does not address update_service, another sibling that could plausibly overlap with changing service state, so the alternative guidance is incomplete.

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