container_rename

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals nondestructive mutation (state, config unchanged), conflict behavior, and return value (full inspect payload). This adds meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Concise and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds value: behavior, use case, error condition, sibling differentiation, parameter listing. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value (dict of inspect payload). Parameters are fully described. Sibling tools are large but key differentiation from `image_tag` is provided. The description is self-sufficient for a simple rename tool.

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 provides no descriptions (coverage 0%), but the description fully explains both parameters: `id_or_name` (container id or name) and `name` (new name, must not be in use). This compensates for schema gaps.

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?

Clearly states the tool renames a container, specifies what remains unchanged (id, state, configuration), and distinguishes from `image_tag` which names images. The verb 'rename' plus the scope ('in place') makes purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly advises using the tool to free up or claim a container name, e.g., before starting a replacement under the old name. Mentions conflict error if name taken. Does not include explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, but the positive guidance is strong.

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