Manage Container

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description adds specific behaviors: start/stop idempotency details, remove error handling, and the prerequisite for create. It also mentions dry-run support, enhancing transparency.

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 highly concise: two sentences covering all actions and key constraints. Every sentence adds new information without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 actions, 10 params, no output schema), the description covers the main behaviors well but does not describe return values or success indicators. It is almost complete for the agent's needs.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by linking parameters to actions (e.g., interface and remoteImage needed on create). This provides relational context beyond individual descriptions.

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 it manages containers by creating, starting, stopping, or removing them. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_containers (read-only) and manage_container_config by focusing on lifecycle 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?

The description provides usage context: create requires a pre-configured veth interface, start/stop are idempotent (no-ops in target state), remove throws NOT_FOUND if absent. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives but gives practical guidelines.

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