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, but it only states that configuration is updated. It does not explain whether changes apply immediately, whether they require a reboot, how the 'delete' parameter interacts with existing settings, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The argument list is concise and each line carries necessary parameter information, though a few entries are tautological (e.g., 'description: Description'). Overall, it is efficient without excessive prose.

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?

Even with an output schema, the description omits critical contextual information for a mutative tool: usage guidelines, behavioral consequences, and prerequisite knowledge about how settings are applied or deleted. For an agent to confidently invoke this tool, more explanation of the update semantics is needed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists all parameters with brief meanings, adding useful context such as memory in MB, CPU limit semantics, and the comma-separated nature of features/delete. However, many entries are shallow (e.g., 'net0: Network config') and lack formatting or syntax details.

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 'Update the configuration of an existing container' uses a specific verb and identifies the resource clearly. It distinguishes itself from read-only container tools and from VM config updates by explicitly mentioning 'container', though it does not name its sibling alternatives directly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_vm_config or get_container_config. No preconditions, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the name alone.

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