Manage Container Config

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the tool is idempotent and returns 'no_change' if no modifications occur. Annotations only flagged idempotentHint, so this extends understanding of the response.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. Every word serves a purpose, stating the action and a key behavior.

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 no output schema, the description fails to describe the return value beyond the idempotent case (e.g., success, error). Schema covers parameters well, but the overall operational context is sparse.

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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description does not add new meaning or examples for any parameter, keeping the baseline at 3.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update global container settings'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'manage_container' or 'manage_container_env', but the qualifier 'global' distinguishes it implicitly.

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 mentions idempotency and the 'no_change' response, which guides safe repeated usage. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'manage_container' or any contextual boundaries.

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