Update container

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

Annotations state destructiveHint=false, but the description says 'recreate a container,' which is inherently destructive (stop, remove, create). This contradicts the non-destructive annotation, confusing the agent about the tool's safety profile.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Key actions (pull and recreate) are front-loaded, making it immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify return values or side effects. It mentions pull and recreate but does not describe outcome (e.g., new container ID, status). The contradiction with annotations also reduces trust.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool pulls the latest image and recreates the container with the same configuration. It provides a specific verb+resource (update container) and distinguishes from siblings like arcane_container_create or arcane_container_redeploy by emphasizing the pull-and-recreate behavior.

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 implies use when wanting to update a container to the latest image, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to. Sibling tools like arcane_container_redeploy or arcane_container_restart are not mentioned, so the agent lacks comparative guidance.

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