update_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral trait: that updating the URL does not trigger a fetch/re-download of the document, which distinguishes it from refresh_service. However, it omits whether permissions are required, whether the change is reversible, and what happens to previously loaded operations.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loading the core action followed by the key caveat. No filler text, though the second sentence is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% parameter coverage, the description is thin. It leaves unaddressed what happens to the existing URL/operations, permission requirements, and any return behavior.

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 only 33%: workspace is documented inline, but url and service have no descriptions. The description adds no meaning to any parameter (e.g., URL format, whether it must be absolute, or what 'service' identifies), so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb and resource (update a service URL), which is clear against siblings like add_service and remove_service. The second sentence implicitly distinguishes it from refresh_service by clarifying that it does not fetch the document, giving useful sibling differentiation, though it could name refresh_service explicitly.

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 note 'It does not fetch the document' implies you should use refresh_service when you want the spec fetched, but this is left to inference rather than stated. No explicit when-to-use or prerequisites are given.

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