update_service

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

No annotations provided. The description only says 'Update a service', which implies mutation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, whether it triggers a restart, or if changes are irreversible. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide essential behavioral context.

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 extremely concise (3 words). No redundant information. Could benefit from a brief note about the encoded field, but overall it is appropriately front-loaded and to the point.

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 has 4 parameters (all documented), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks context about side effects (e.g., does updating trigger a redeployment?). It does not leverage the schema or annotations to provide a complete picture for a mutation tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not explain that docker_compose_raw must be base64 encoded (though the schema description hints at it). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract but adds minimal value.

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 'Update a service' clearly states the action and resource. The input schema further specifies updatable fields (name, description, docker_compose_raw). However, it does not differentiate from sibling update tools like update_application, but the tool name itself is sufficiently specific.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_service_env for environment variables). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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