container_rename

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

Exceeds annotations by explaining the rename is in-place with unchanged id/state/configuration, conflict behavior, and return value. This is crucial because daemon rename semantics are non-obvious.

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?

Description is well-structured: purpose, usage context, args, return. Each sentence adds value; no fluff. Length is appropriate for a 2-param tool.

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?

Without output schema, description provides the return type and content. Covers error case, uniqueness, and usage context. Fully sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so description must compensate. It defines `id_or_name` as container id or name and `name` as new name with uniqueness constraint. Adequately conveys meaning, though could include format examples.

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?

Description clearly states 'Rename a container in place' with specifics on immutability of id/state/config, and explicitly distinguishes from `image_tag`. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicit use case ('free up or claim a container name'), notes uniqueness per daemon, and warns about conflict errors. Also flags unrelated `image_tag`. Lacks mention of alternative container rename methods or when not to use, but is strong overall.

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