update_container_config

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the update requires a restart, if changes are immediate, or any side effects. The description only lists parameters without 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?

The description starts with a clear purpose sentence, then lists parameters in a compact format. It is not overly verbose, though the parameter list is long. The structure is functional but could be more streamlined.

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 the complexity (15 parameters, update operation) and presence of an output schema, the description lacks context about post-update behavior, such as whether the container restarts, if any parameters are interdependent, or what the response contains. It is incomplete for effective use.

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 add value. It provides brief comments for each parameter (e.g., 'Memory in MB', 'CPU cores'), which adds some context beyond parameter names but is minimal. Many comments are trivial or restate the name.

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 'Update the configuration of an existing container.' which clearly identifies the verb (update) and resource (container configuration), distinct from sibling tools like create_container or clone_container.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when the container must be stopped or if some parameters require the container to be offline. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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