Set service build/deploy config

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

The description says 'change' which correctly aligns with readOnlyHint=false and does not contradict the idempotentHint=true annotation. However, it adds little beyond the annotations: it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether a redeploy is triggered), the optimistic-concurrency revision check implied by the 'force' parameter, or what happens to unset fields. For a mutation tool, this is a notable gap.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the usage trigger and key examples. It earns a 4 for efficiency, but not a 5 because the trailing 'etc.' is a weak way to imply the full parameter set and the sentence could be slightly more explicit without adding length.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, and a low schema coverage), the description is far too sparse to be complete. It leaves out crucial operational context: required parameters, effect of the optimistic-concurrency check, valid values for sourceType, and whether changes trigger deployments. An agent would need to inspect the schema deeply or guess, which is inadequate for a setter 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 only 8% (only 'force' has a description), so the description must compensate. It names four parameters (source repo, branch, build command, start command) but silently omits the remaining nine (sourceType, containerPort, rootDirectory, watchPatterns, dockerfilePath, preDeployCommand, etc.) and does not explain required 'project' and 'service' parameters. This leaves significant parameter semantics undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ('change'), a resource ('Lizard service's build/deploy configuration'), and concrete example fields ('source repo, branch, build command, start command'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like service_scale or service_delete. It loses one point because 'etc.' is vague and the description does not explicitly name the required project/service scope, leaving some ambiguity about what the tool targets.

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 description clearly states when to use the tool: 'when the user wants to change a Lizard service's build/deploy configuration.' This provides a solid trigger condition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like service_set_port or service_scale, nor does it state when not to use it, so it is strong but not fully comprehensive.

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