lattice_update_api

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

With no annotations, the description covers important behavior: image-unchanged detection ('already up to date' no restart), and the 'force' parameter for env-variable changes. However, it omits details such as whether restarts occur on actual updates, permission requirements, or error states.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and parameters; the second explains the return behavior. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple mutate tool with no output schema, the description explains key return behavior and parameter usage. However, it lacks details on success/failure indicators, idempotency, and potential side effects (e.g., downtime, service interruption). Adequate but not fully complete.

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% with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that 'version' persists across restarts and clarifying the use case for 'force' (after env-variable changes). This enriches the schema-provided info, exceeding the baseline of 3.

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 'Update the Lattice API container', specifying the target resource (API container) and action. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'lattice_update_stack' or 'lattice_update_web', though it could explicitly contrast with them for stronger differentiation.

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 guidance on when to pass the 'version' parameter (to deploy/rollback) versus omit it (follow compose file), but it does not explain when this tool should be used instead of siblings like 'lattice_update_stack_compose' or 'lattice_deploy_stack'. No explicit alternatives or usage context relative to other tools.

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