create_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Create a new LXC container,' which implies a mutating operation, but it does not mention permissions required, potential side effects, failure conditions (e.g., duplicate vmid), whether the creation is idempotent, or how long it might take. Some parameter-level notes (e.g., 'start after creation', 'unprivileged recommended') add minor context, but the overall safety and side-effect profile is left undisclosed.

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 a single purpose sentence followed by a structured Args list. Each line is short and directly tied to a parameter, with no fluff. For 23 parameters, the length is justified and the format makes scanning easy. It front-loads the purpose clearly.

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?

For a complex creation tool with 23 parameters, the description covers all parameter semantics with examples and defaults, and an output schema exists for return-value documentation. The main gaps are the absence of usage guidance (when to use vs. alternatives) and behavioral side-effect disclosure, but those are already penalized in their respective dimensions. For an agent that needs to form a correct create call, the parameter documentation is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does so exceptionally: every one of the 23 parameters is listed with a concise description, default value where applicable, and often a concrete example (e.g., 'local:vztmpl/debian-12-standard_12.2-1_amd64.tar.zst' for ostemplate, 'name=eth0,bridge=vmbr0,ip=dhcp' for net0, 'local-lvm:8' for rootfs). This goes far beyond the schema, which only provides names and types.

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 'Create a new LXC container,' which is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from create_vm (for VMs) and clone_container (for cloning existing containers). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings in the text, so it is clear but not maximally sibling-aware.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_container_config, clone_container, or create_vm. There are no prerequisites, no 'use this when...' notes, and no exclusions. The caller must infer usage purely from the tool name and the brief purpose line.

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