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

Adds real behavioral content beyond the annotations: the ~40s readiness wait, the fact that env and other settings are untouched, the 30-day history boundary, and that the running version is replaced requiring approval. Annotations already carry destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, so this is meaningful added context.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then constraints, then the approval warning. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the run-on middle sentence is the only mild cost.

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 an output schema present, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent still needs: what is preserved, how long the wait is, and the approval prerequisite.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the default behavior of image. The description restates the image default and its first-container targeting but adds no new syntax or edge-case meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact mechanism: restores the previous image of every container whose image changed, or sets the image on the first container. The scope detail ('only images change') makes it distinguishable from restart_workload and update_workload even though they aren't named.

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?

Gives clear operating context: the 30-day change-history window, the image-override option, and an explicit 'get approval first' warning that flags the operation as a replacement of the running version. It stops short of naming alternatives (restart_workload, update_workload) or stating when-not to use it.

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