Modify a service

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by detailing that it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and that it may notify recipients or change tenant data. This provides concrete side effects beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation. It also gives the HTTP method and a reference link, adding useful behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the action and endpoint, then listing fields and requirements in a single sentence. It includes all essential information (endpoint, fields, prerequisites, side effects) with no redundancy or filler, making it an efficient and well-structured description.

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?

The description covers the action, endpoint, body fields, confirm requirement, side effects, and provides a reference link. It does not describe the return value, but for a mutation tool without an output schema, this is a minor omission. The prerequisites and side effects are well-documented, making the tool adequately complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema describes the body generically, but the description enumerates specific fields (id, targetName, description, serviceTier, serviceType, ownedBy) that are not in the schema, aiding payload construction. It also explains the confirm parameter as explicit approval, aligning with the schema. This adds meaningful guidance 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 'Modify a service' and specifies the exact endpoint (POST /api/xm/1/services) and the body fields, making the action and resource unambiguous. The verb 'modify' and resource 'service' are explicit, and the list of fields adds specificity, distinguishing it from create/delete/get operations.

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 this tool is for updating an existing service (as opposed to creating/deleting) and warns about the operator write opt-in and confirm:true requirement. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like xmatters_create_a_service or xmatters_delete_a_service, but the name and title are self-explanatory, making the intended use clear.

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