container_update

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description adds that changes take effect immediately on Linux (cgroups) and that platform limitations exist. Does not mention required permissions or response format, but output schema is absent.

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 a single paragraph with a clear front-loaded purpose. It is reasonably concise given the complexity, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for keys) without losing clarity.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers both parameters in depth, gives examples, explains platform behavior, and clarifies when not to use it. It is complete for practical agent usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'updates' object structure, listing valid keys with examples (e.g., mem_limit, cpu_shares, restart_policy) and providing value formats. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare 'type: object'.

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 it updates resource limits on a container without recreating it. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like container_create, container_inspect, etc.

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?

Explicitly notes platform differences and that not all fields are updatable on every platform. Provides list of common updatable keys and states when recreation is necessary (changing image, env, volumes). However, does not explicitly name alternative tools for those cases.

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