Set Docker image

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries full behavioral burden; it does disclose a real validation precondition (image must be permitted by the server's egg), which prevents a likely failure mode. It says nothing about required permissions, whether the server must be stopped or restarted afterward, effect on existing container data, or whether the change persists immediately.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and its constraint, no filler. Every clause 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 an unannotated mutation tool with two undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits prerequisites, post-change effects (restart, reinstall requirement), how to discover allowed images, and permission scope, leaving the agent to guess at the operational sequence.

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 67%, and the two required parameters (server, docker_image) carry no schema descriptions. The description ties docker_image to the egg's allowed-image set, which is genuine semantic value, but adds no format guidance for the image string nor any indication of how the server is identified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Change the server's Docker image', plus a scoping constraint about the egg. An agent can tell this mutates the image rather than reading startup config or renaming the server. No explicit naming of a sibling to contrast with, so it stops short of 5.

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 parenthetical 'must be one allowed by its egg' implies the agent should first resolve allowed images (plausibly via server_startup_get) before calling, but this is left implicit. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use statement or named alternative to consult.

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