Set service build/deploy config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the scope of mutation (build/deploy config fields), but omits critical behavioral facts: whether unspecified fields are replaced or preserved, what happens on a revision conflict, and when 'force' should be used.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the usage trigger and leads with the resource. Zero padding, though the brevity is partly the source of the missing detail.

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?

A 13-parameter destructive mutation with 8% schema coverage and no output schema needs substantially more description than one sentence. An agent cannot know merge-vs-replace semantics, conflict handling, or value formats for most parameters.

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 only 8% (just the 'force' flag), so the description carries the burden for 13 parameters. It names roughly four field families (repo, branch, build command, start command) with no format, allowed values for sourceType, or glob syntax for watchPatterns, leaving most parameters undocumented in both places.

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 ('change') and resource ('a Lizard service's build/deploy configuration') and enumerates representative fields, so an agent can tell it apart from service_create, service_rename, or service_scale. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 'Use this when the user wants to change...' framing gives an implied trigger condition, but there are no exclusions and no guidance on related tools that an agent would plausibly reach for instead (config_apply, service_create, service_show to inspect the current config first).

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