update_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Actualizar un servicio' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that modifies data with 4 required parameters, this lack of transparency is inadequate.

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?

While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to provide necessary information that would help an AI agent use the tool correctly. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide enough value.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 required parameters (including a nested object), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'updating a service' entails, what fields can be modified, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral aspects. The agent would be operating with minimal guidance.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. However, schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for the 25% gap (the nested provider object lacks overall description), but it doesn't make things worse either.

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 'Actualizar un servicio' (Update a service) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_service' in Spanish. It doesn't specify what aspects of a service are updated, how the update works, or what distinguishes it from sibling update tools like update_agency or update_provider. While the verb and resource are clear, it lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing service ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like update_provider or create_service. With many sibling tools available, this absence of context is problematic for an AI agent.

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