Manage Container

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true. Description adds beyond annotations: pre-requisites for create, idempotency behavior for start/stop, error for remove on missing container, and dry-run support. No contradictions.

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?

Five sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds essential behavioral or prerequisite information. No fluff.

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?

No output schema, but description covers prerequisites, idempotency, error behavior, and dry-run. For a management tool, it is sufficiently complete. Could optionally describe return value but not required.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds context beyond schema: notes that remoteImage is required on create, interface must be pre-configured, and name serves as idempotency key. This adds value.

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?

Description explicitly states it can create, start, stop, or remove a RouterOS container, clearly identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., list_containers) by covering lifecycle management actions.

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?

Description provides when-to-use details: create requires pre-configured veth, start/stop are no-ops if already in target state, remove throws NOT_FOUND if missing, and supports dry-run. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear given the tool name and sibling list.

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