service_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not detail behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, or side effects (e.g., does it trigger a restart?). It only implies mutation, but lacks specifics beyond 'update'.

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?

Concise and well-structured: uses emojis, bullet points, clear sections, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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?

The description is fairly complete given the 10 parameters (3 required) and no output schema. It includes prerequisites, next steps, and related tools. However, it does not cover return values or potential error conditions, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning per parameter beyond listing categories (e.g., 'resource limits'), which is already implied. Given the high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a service's configuration' and lists specific use cases like changing settings, updating resource limits, and modifying deployment configuration. This distinguishes it well from siblings like service_restart and variable_set.

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?

Excellent guidelines: 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections explicitly list when to use and when not to, with alternatives (e.g., variable_set, service_restart, deployment_trigger). Also includes prerequisites and next steps, providing clear context for the AI agent.

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