container_update

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

Adds behavioral context beyond annotations: changes are immediate, platform-dependent, and specific updateable fields are listed. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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?

Well-structured with front-loaded purpose, then behavior, parameter details, and return info. Slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Covers essential aspects: effect, platform differences, common keys, alternative for non-updateable fields. Lacks error handling or validation details, but sufficient given tool complexity and no output schema.

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 has 0% coverage, but description compensates fully by explaining valid keys (mem_limit, cpu_shares, etc.) with units and examples, and describes return value. Adds substantial meaning beyond schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Update resource limits on a container without recreating it.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like container_remove+container_run for changing image/env/volumes.

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?

Provides context: 'Changes take effect immediately on Linux (cgroups); not all fields are updatable on every platform.' It lists common keys and explains alternative for other changes (recreate). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but offers good guidance.

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