container_rename

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses key behavior: the container's id, state, and configuration remain unchanged; it fails with a conflict if the name is taken; and it returns the full inspect payload. This is far more informative than the bare annotations and sets clear expectations for side effects and outcomes.

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 yet complete, with a clear opening statement, a usage rationale, a clarification about a related tool, and a well-organized args/returns section. Every sentence contributes valuable information without 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 two-parameter rename operation, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, an error condition, and the return value. With no output schema, this is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Although the input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), the description includes an 'args' section that clearly explains each parameter: `id_or_name` is the container id or name, and `name` is the new name with the constraint that it must not be in use. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Rename a container in place' with the specific resource and verb, and distinguishes itself from `image_tag` by noting it's about images, not container names. This fully clarifies what the tool does and sets it apart from sibling tools.

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 explicitly advises when to use it ('free up or claim a container name', e.g., before starting a replacement) and mentions the conflict error for taken names. It also explicitly compares to `image_tag`, providing an exclusionary alternative. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. others.

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