update_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it states partial-update semantics, clarifies that clear_owner/clear_tier remove assignments, that tags and links are replaced wholesale, and that environment changes are additive/removal. It could add permission expectations or failure behavior, but the mutation semantics are transparent.

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?

One crisp behavioral sentence followed by a dense, consistently formatted Args list. Every parameter line adds necessary information and the partial-update rule is front-loaded so the agent knows not to send nulls for unchanged fields.

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 19-parameter mutation with no annotations, the description supplies the essential selection criteria and parameter behavior; an output schema is present, so lack of return-value detail is acceptable. It is slightly incomplete only in not naming sibling tools or prerequisite conditions for updating an existing service.

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%, yet the description documents all 19 parameters with meaningful semantics: enumerated values for kind/lifecycle/tier, the meaning of boolean clear flags, and replace vs add/remove behavior for list fields. This goes far beyond what the bare schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Update a service', and adds the partial-update qualifier 'Only provided fields change.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create_service and delete_service operations by naming the resource and action.

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?

Usage context is implied: an existing service must be updated, since service_id is required and create/delete siblings exist. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over create_service/delete_service or states exclusions, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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