Docker Container Update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully flags that this is a write operation, but discloses nothing else: whether changes require a container restart, whether existing limits are preserved or replaced, permission/session requirements, or reversibility. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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 compact sentence with the write-operation marker front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is efficient but extremely terse, leaving no room to convey the operational context an agent would need.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers most parameters. However, for an 8-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, the definition omits prerequisites (stopped container? restart required?), which the schema cannot express, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 88%, so the schema already documents host/port/scheme/profile/memory_mb/cpu_shares/container_id. The description's mention of restart policy, memory, and CPU limits only loosely echoes three of the eight parameters and adds no format or range semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (更新容器配置) and enumerates the exact fields mutated (重启策略/内存/CPU 限制), so an agent can distinguish it from docker_container_action, docker_container_rm, and docker_container_create. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 '(写操作)' tag implies this is the mutation path, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives (e.g., use docker_container_action to start/stop/restart rather than update), and no prerequisite such as whether the container must be stopped first.

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