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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: partial-update semantics ("only the name, weight or notes given change"), text replacement ("a text given replaces the old text"), and the guarantee that "No container is deleted." It also notes the auth context ("Needs the baker's Loafy account"). The overwrite/replace disclosure aligns with destructiveHint=true rather than contradicting it.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and id source, with no boilerplate. The clause "only the name, weight or notes given change" is slightly tangled in wording but carries needed semantics.

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, the description covers the essential concerns: target identification, partial-update behavior, overwrite semantics, no-deletion guarantee, and account requirement. Return shape is unspecified, which is a minor residual gap given no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not encode: that unspecified fields are left untouched and that supplied text overwrites the previous value. It also names the three mutable fields in prose, reinforcing the schema's parameter set.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ("Change one of the baker's containers") and pins the target by id source (list_my_containers), distinguishing it from the sibling update_bake/update_starter tools that act on different resources.

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?

It tells the agent where the required id comes from (list_my_containers, echoed by add_container in the schema) and clarifies the tool is for modifying an existing container. It stops short of explicitly routing the agent to add_container when no container exists yet, so no exclusion is stated.

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