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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses mutating behavior, idempotency requirement, request_id presence in structuredContent, admin permission requirement, exact error shape, and the instruction to surface the message and stop without retrying.

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 dense but well organized: purpose first, then mutating behavior, response contract, permissions, and error handling. Every clause adds operational value and no filler is present.

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?

With output schema present, return values need not be explained; the description covers permissions, errors, idempotency, and retry behavior. It is not fully complete because it omits guidance for several parameters with low schema coverage, but it covers the most consequential invocation details.

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 only 29%, and the description does not compensate. It only mentions idempotency_key, which is already required in the schema, and provides no guidance for method enum values, container_id, auth_token, dry_run, or the auth_token/container_hash interplay.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Persist the chosen installation method on the container.' It also labels the operation as mutating, which clearly distinguishes it from the read-oriented sibling tools such as get_container and list_containers.

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?

Provides clear context by stating the operation is mutating, requires an agent-supplied idempotency_key, and requires admin permission on the container's company. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisites and failure mode are enough to guide when it should be used.

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