panelica_docker_post_v1_docker_containers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the required scope (docker:write) and confirms 'Mutating: changes server state,' which is consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It does not disclose side effects, what resources get consumed, or response behavior, but the bar is lower given the annotations.

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?

Five short lines with the core action front-loaded, followed by endpoint, category, scope, and mutation flag. Every line carries information; zero filler.

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 mutating create operation with no output schema and an opaque free-form body parameter, the description is insufficient: the agent cannot construct a valid request body or know what response to expect. Required scopes and mutating status are helpful, but the essential 'what fields does the body need' information is missing and only deferred to external API docs.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the sole parameter's schema description explicitly defers ('Schema not statically declared — see API docs'), so the agent gets no meaningful structure for the JSON body, and the tool description adds nothing about required or optional fields to compensate for that gap.

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?

"Create container" states a specific verb and resource, and the HTTP line (POST /v1/docker/containers) pins down the exact endpoint, distinguishing it from siblings like panelica_docker_get_v1_docker_containers (list) and panelica_docker_post_v1_docker_containers_id_action (act on existing). However, it is largely a restatement of the title and tool name, adding little descriptive texture about what creating a container entails.

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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as panelica_docker_post_v1_docker_templates_slug_deploy or the container action endpoint. The scopes line ('Required scopes: docker:write') is a prerequisite, not selection guidance, and no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routes are mentioned.

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