services_edit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond it: it does not say whether this is a partial PATCH (omitted fields preserved) or a full replacement, whether changes are reversible, or what "/services/{id}" implies about scope. For a destructive write tool the added behavioral context is essentially zero.

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 short lines, front-loaded and free of filler, which is structurally sound. However the brevity is achieved through under-specification rather than compression of useful content, so it reads as terse rather than 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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested body object, 0% parameter description coverage, and no output schema. The description supplies no semantics for PATCH behavior, but because annotations do disclose destructiveness and idempotency, the gap is severe rather than total.

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 description coverage is 0% at the parameter level, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains the relationship between the required `id` (number or string) and the required `body` object, nor that body fields are optional partial-update keys. The nested property descriptions that do exist come from the schema, not the description.

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 gives a verb ("Edit") and a resource ("service data") plus the underlying endpoint PATCH /services/{id}, so the general intent is recoverable. But "service data" is vague and the definition never names the editable fields (icon, name, autoProlong) or distinguishes this from close siblings like services_change_password, services_change_product, or services_migrate. Minimum-viable rather than clear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Among a large sibling set containing services_change_product, services_change_password, and services_prolong, an agent gets no signal about which mutation to pick for a given user request. The endpoint path is not a substitute for routing guidance.

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