container_rename

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation is disclosed. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the rename is in-place with id/state/configuration unchanged, names are unique per daemon, and it fails with a conflict error if the new name is taken. It does not detail permission requirements or side effects on dependent resources, but for a rename operation the disclosed behavior is solid.

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: the core semantics appear in the first sentence, followed by usage context, a failure condition, and a sibling disambiguation. The Args/Returns sections are minimal and useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the operation's semantics, uniqueness constraint, failure mode, and return value (full inspect payload). It lacks explicit mention of permissions or what happens to references to the old name, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and call it.

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 compensate. It explains the `name` parameter ('The new name; must not be in use by any other container') and the overall operation implies `id_or_name` identifies the container to rename. It does not explicitly define `id_or_name` as the current container identifier, but the tool name and context make this inferable. The description adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though a one-line clarification of `id_or_name` would make it complete.

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 a specific verb ('Rename'), a resource ('container'), and the key semantic: 'in place; its id, state, and configuration are unchanged.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `image_tag` ('Not related to `image_tag`, which names images'), so an agent can tell it apart from the most confusable sibling without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Use it to free up or claim a container name (names are unique per daemon) - e.g. before starting a replacement under the old name.' It also states a failure condition ('Fails with a conflict error if the new name is already taken') and names the alternative it is not (`image_tag`). This is strong routing guidance.

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