Service Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it reports configuration rather than live state, explains value origins (self-set vs. service template), and clarifies the response is never current state or check results. No contradiction found.

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 three focused sentences with no filler and the core purpose is front-loaded. Minor awkward phrasing such as 'follows its servicetemplate for' slightly reduces clarity, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 read-only tool with a rich annotation set, a full parameter schema, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers scope, provenance, and explicit exclusions. It could be slightly more complete by naming a sibling fallback for state/health questions, but this is a minor gap.

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 input schema fully describes both required parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. It adds indirect context that reported field names match update_service parameters, but this does not significantly deepen understanding of hostname/servicename semantics beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool reports a service's configuration and the provenance of each value (set by the service itself vs. followed from its service template). It also explicitly distinguishes this from current state or check results, which differentiates it from health/status sibling tools.

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 tells the agent this is for configuration, not state or check results, and notes that field names align with update_service for potential changes. It gives clear exclusions but does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool or provide an explicit when-to-use statement.

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