Redeploy container

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but provide no further behavioral context. The description adds the fact that it pulls the latest image and recreates the container, which implies a mutation and potential downtime. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., image cleanup, volume persistence, or error states), so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentence with an explanatory parenthetical. It front-loads the verb and resource, contains no unnecessary words, and is easily scannable.

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?

Given the tool's mutation nature and the presence of many sibling container tools, the description lacks context about the redeployment process (e.g., downtime, volume behavior, image management). Without output schema or further details, an agent cannot fully understand the effects or distinguish it from restart/update for decision-making.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, but parameter descriptions are minimal ('Environment ID', 'Container ID or name to redeploy'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context to these parameters (e.g., where to find IDs, format constraints). With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description meets that but adds no extra value.

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 clearly states 'Redeploy a single container (pull latest image and recreate)' which specifies the action, resource, and mechanism. Among sibling container tools like create, delete, restart, start, stop, and update, this distinguishes itself by emphasizing pulling latest image and recreating, which is different from restart (no pull) or update (config change).

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like container_restart, container_update, or project_redeploy. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from similar operations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the brief description.

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