Update Docker Host

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the partial update behavior ('Only the fields you pass are changed — the others are preserved.'), which is valuable. However, it does not mention error conditions, permissions, or side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical hint and behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

The description covers the essential context: what it does, how to find the target ID, and the partial update behavior. The output schema is present, so return values are covered. For a simple update tool, this is sufficiently complete, though it could mention what happens if the ID is invalid.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds a general semantic that all optional fields are only updated if passed, which is useful but not per-parameter. It does not go beyond the schema for individual parameter meanings, so the baseline 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 ('Updates an existing docker daemon connection') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning how to find the ID via listDockerHosts, which is the prerequisite for this tool.

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 a clear usage pointer: 'Use listDockerHosts to find the docker host ID.' It implies this tool is for modifying existing connections, which is enough to guide the choice over add/delete/test. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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