update_service_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a mutation and gives a concrete service_data example ("tcp-portrange": "3389"), which is helpful, but it never says whether unspecified fields are preserved or wiped (merge vs replace), whether the object name can be changed, what permissions are needed, or what 'Update status' actually contains.

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?

Purpose, example, parameter list and return value in a few front-loaded lines. The parameter list largely repeats the 100%-covered schema, but it is short enough that the redundancy costs nothing.

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?

For a mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested free-form object, the description should cover merge semantics, prerequisites and the shape of the result. 'Returns: Update status' is too thin, and the vdom scoping implications are not addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but service_data is an open object (additionalProperties: true) whose schema says only 'Fields to change'. The worked example showing FortiOS key naming fills a real gap that the schema cannot.

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 and resource ('Update an existing custom service object') and names the fields it touches (ports, protocol, comment), which distinguishes it cleanly from create_service_object, delete_service_object and list_service_objects. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word 'existing' implies the object must already be present, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (device registered, object created first), and no mention of when to use this versus the generic update_cmdb_object sibling. The agent must infer all of that.

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