update-service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a mutation operation ('update'), it doesn't describe critical behaviors: whether this triggers downtime, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, how deployments progress, or what happens to existing configurations. For a complex deployment tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool description and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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 complex deployment/mutation tool with 3 parameters (including a highly nested definition object), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description fails to provide necessary context about how the tool works, what it returns, what side effects it has, or how to use its parameters. For such a complex tool, this description is completely inadequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about parameters - it doesn't mention the service ID requirement, the complex definition object, or any of the configuration options. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented in both schema and 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 clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('service's configuration'), and specifies the mechanism ('by creating a new deployment'). It distinguishes from simple configuration updates by mentioning deployment creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deploy' or 'create-service'.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deploy' or 'create-service'. The description mentions deployment creation but doesn't clarify if this is for existing services only or when this approach is preferred over other deployment methods. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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