update_resources_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action of updating resources and does not disclose effects such as whether changes require a restart, take effect immediately, require specific permissions, or whether null values mean 'leave unchanged'. This is minimal behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded with the update action and resource. It is efficient, though it could be more structured to list parameters or conditions, but conciseness itself is high.

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?

The description is minimal and lacks crucial context for a mutation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain null semantics, effects on running containers, or relationship to other resource-update tools. The description is incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 mentions cores, memory, and swap but omits cpulimit and cpuweight. It does not explain the meaning of null defaults, units (e.g., MB for memory), or any constraints. This is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'Update' and identifies the resource type 'LXC container' along with the specific resources 'CPU cores, memory, or swap resources'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_cpu_vm (which targets VMs) and resize_container_disk (which targets disks).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_cpu_vm, update_memory_vm, or resize_container_disk. The description only states the action without any context for selection, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly among similar resource-modification tools.

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