Service Edit

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already provide. The mutating and destructive nature is encoded by readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, while the description simply restates 'Edit'. It does not explain whether the payload replaces the full service definition, whether edits are reversible, or what side effects may occur.

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?

One compact sentence states the action, the resource, and the identifying parameter with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and immediately tells the agent what the tool does.

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 simple CRUD edit operation, the combination of a clear one-sentence description, a fully documented input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations is largely sufficient. A bit more context about destructive overwrite behavior would improve it, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents service_id and payload fields clearly. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or payload usage, but it does not need to because the schema carries this information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit'), a clear resource ('service'), and the lookup key ('service ID'), so an agent can immediately tell this is an update operation. It distinguishes itself from siblings like service_add, service_delete, and services_list without needing to open their schemas.

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 implies the tool is for modifying an existing service, and 'by service ID' signals that the service must already exist. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as pointing to service_add for creation or service_delete for removal. Usage is clear but mostly implied rather than stated.

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