service_update_host

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a permission requirement, which adds context, but does not mention side effects, idempotency, or whether the service must exist. This is minimal but better than nothing.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter update tool, the description covers the core purpose and permission context. It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists. The main gap is the implicit distinction from 'admin_update_host', which is not fully clarified.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaningful parameter detail beyond naming 'hostname', which is already in 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 a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('service' + 'hostname'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'admin_update_host' implicitly by referencing 'blue team edit permissions'.

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 gives a usage prerequisite (blue team permissions) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'admin_update_host' or 'service_update_port'. There is no clear exclusion or alternative guidance.

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