services_change_product

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add value by revealing that the call is a payment operation ('Pay') and is restricted to products in the same group, which annotations cannot express. It omits what happens to the existing service during/after the switch (downtime, data loss, billing timing), which matters for a destructive paid call.

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?

Two compact lines with the operation and endpoint front-loaded and zero filler. The telegraphic style is efficient, though it comes at the cost of the missing details noted elsewhere.

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 destructive, monetary, two-parameter tool with a nested body, no output schema, and no return-value documentation, the description is thin. It does not state what the agent or user should expect after success, whether the switch is reversible, or how payment is settled. The absence of an output schema means the description should carry far more of that burden.

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?

Reported schema coverage is 0%, so the description is expected to compensate, but it only partially does. It clarifies that productId must target the same product group, which the schema does not state. It never explains that 'id' is the service identifier nor what values the free-form 'method' string accepts.

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 names a specific verb pair and resource: 'Pay and switch service to another product', plus the scoping constraint 'in the same group' and the underlying endpoint. An agent can tell this is a paid product-change operation rather than a read or settings edit. It stops short of naming the sibling that gets a price quote first, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no stated prerequisites, such as needing a prior price check or sufficient account balance. The only applicability signal is the implicit 'same group' constraint embedded in the purpose sentence. An agent must infer the surrounding workflow entirely.

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