Modify a service dependency

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds valuable context: it requires operator write opt-in and confirm:true, and warns that it 'may notify recipients or change tenant data'. This goes beyond what annotations convey about side effects and permission requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the action, endpoint, key body fields, requirements, and side effects in a few sentences. The opening clause repeats the title but does not significantly bloat it; the reference link is a useful addition rather than filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and a generic body schema, the description covers the endpoint, body fields, required confirmation, side effects, and a documentation link. It does not describe the return value or error behavior, but the provided context is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the body parameter is a generic recursive JSON schema. The description compensates by naming the actual body fields (id, serviceId, dependentServiceId) and by clarifying that confirm must be true, adding real semantic value 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 states the specific verb 'Modify' and the resource 'a service dependency', reinforced by the HTTP method and endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools xmatters_create_a_service_dependency and xmatters_delete_a_service_dependency.

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 tool's purpose implies use when an existing service dependency needs to be changed, and it names important prerequisites (operator write opt-in and confirm:true). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the create or delete alternatives, or when it should not be used.

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