containers_update

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses the key mutation semantics: the container ID survives the update and omitted properties are preserved rather than reset. It also mentions JSON metadata output, although it does not discuss error behavior such as supplying no changes or referencing an unknown container.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the operation and its partial-update behavior before giving invocation requirements and ID scoping. Each sentence adds useful information with no unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The output schema reduces the need to document return values, and the description covers most behavior needed for a safe partial update. Nevertheless, for a five-parameter mutation with undocumented schema fields and no annotations, leaving cookie_store_id’s role and acquisition unexplained is a material invocation gap.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the text explains the update-field requirement, the source of profile_id, and the profile-local scope of object IDs. However, it never explains that cookie_store_id identifies the container to update or where to obtain it, and it gives no accepted-value guidance for color or icon.

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?

“Update a named Firefox container” gives a specific verb and resource, while “preserving its ID and omitted properties” clarifies that this is a partial update of an existing container. That distinguishes it from containers_create, containers_list, and containers_remove without requiring their schemas.

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 supplies clear preconditions: provide at least one of name, color, or icon, and obtain profile_id from profiles_list. It does not explicitly route agents to containers_list for the target identifier or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of fully comprehensive guidance.

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