update_service

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

IdempotentHint=true already conveys repeated-call safety, but the description adds no behavioral context such as whether config replaces or merges, whether changes take effect immediately, or whether a restart is required. It merely restates the operation name.

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 short, direct, and front-loaded, with no filler. The Args block is redundant with the schema, but overall it remains easy to scan and does not overexplain.

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 an unconstrained config object and no schema descriptions, critical semantics are missing: merge vs replace behavior, whether an existing service is required, and how config relates to restart or deploy operations. The output schema covers return shape, but not operation semantics.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. However, 'service_id: Service ID' restates the parameter name, and 'config: New configuration settings' gives no structure, expected keys, or format for the arbitrary nested config object.

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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('service configuration'), making the tool's core function evident. It is distinguishable from sibling actions like create, delete, restart, or stop, though it does not elaborate on scope or edge cases.

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 create_service, deploy_service, or restart_service. It neither states prerequisites such as the service needing to exist nor exclusions such as deploying code changes.

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