sleep_container

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. It adds valuable behavioral detail: the container is stopped, memory is freed, volume/database/URL are preserved, it wakes automatically on the next request, and the updated container is returned. This goes beyond what annotations or schema express.

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 front-loads the action and outcome, then provides the key preservation details and return value. Every clause adds information; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema available, the description covers what the tool does, why an agent would use it, what state is preserved, how it resumes, and what it returns. Nothing essential is missing for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 100% for the only parameter, containerId, which is described as 'The container's UUID.' The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics, such as clarifying that the container must be running or that the ID refers to the target container for sleeping. With full schema coverage, the description is not required to expand on parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Sleep a running container'), the resource affected (container), and the specific outcome: stopping it to free memory while preserving its volume, database, and public URL. This directly distinguishes it from sibling operations like wake_container, delete_container, or set_always_on.

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 communicates when to use the tool: when you want to free memory but retain state and have the container resume on the next request. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., wake_container to resume, delete_container to permanently remove), but the implied contrast ('keeping its volume, database, and public URL') is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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