container_rename

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that id, state, config are unchanged and that the tool fails on name conflict. This provides adequate behavioral context beyond annotations, though lacks details on reversibility or permissions.

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 well-structured, starting with the core action, followed by usage guidance, and ending with parameter and return descriptions. Every sentence is informative, no fluff.

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 simple rename tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, constraints, and return type. It is fully adequate for an agent to understand and 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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear, concise explanations for both parameters: id_or_name as container identifier and name as new name with uniqueness constraint. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema structure.

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 clearly states the tool renames a container in place while preserving id, state, and configuration. It explicitly distinguishes from image_tag and provides concrete use cases, making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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 explains when to use (free up or claim a name before starting a replacement), notes failure conditions (conflict if name taken), and explicitly contrasts with image_tag, giving clear guidance on alternatives.

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