update_container

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

Discloses immediate effect on Linux, platform dependencies, lists valid keys with examples and units, and describes return value. Annotations only show non-read-only and non-destructive; description adds rich behavioral context.

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?

Structured with purpose, details, and arg descriptions. While lengthy, every sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise but appropriate for the information density.

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 parameters, behavior, return value, and limitations well. Lacks error handling or prerequisites, but sufficient for most usage. Good given 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates. Explains id_or_name and updates parameter, and provides detailed valid keys, units, and examples for updates object.

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?

Specifically states 'Update resource limits on a container without recreating it', distinguishing from sibling tools like kill, start, stop, etc. Also clarifies what it does not do (image, env, volumes require recreation).

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?

Clearly states when to use (resource limit updates) and when not (for other changes need recreate). Mentions platform differences. Does not name alternative tools explicitly but context is clear.

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