pve_update_container_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update container configuration' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings, or if there are side effects like container restarts. For a tool with 16 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and waste-free. However, it borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity—while efficient, it may be too brief to fully convey purpose without relying heavily on the schema and context.

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 complexity (16 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' entails, behavioral traits, or return values, leaving the agent to infer details solely from the schema. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, more descriptive context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 100%, meaning all 16 parameters are documented in the input schema with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Memory in MB', 'CPU cores'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate with extra context like format examples or interdependencies.

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 'Update container configuration' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('container configuration'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated or differentiate it from similar tools like 'pve_update_vm_config' or 'pve_get_container_config' among the siblings, leaving room for ambiguity about its specific scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing container), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'pve_get_container_config' for reading or 'pve_create_container' for initial setup. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly among related operations.

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