update_compose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether the update replaces or merges config, whether it requires the compose to be stopped, whether changes are applied live or need a restart, or what permissions are needed for this mutation.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. Three words cannot front-load the information an agent needs, so brevity here is a deficit, not a virtue.

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 two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is present.

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 0% for two required parameters (id and content), and the description supplies no compensating detail. The agent cannot tell whether 'id' is the compose name, a numeric identifier, or a stack index, nor what format 'content' must take.

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 compose' is essentially a tautological restatement of the tool name with no added specificity. While the verb 'update' plus resource 'compose' weakly distinguishes it from siblings like create_compose, start_compose or remove_compose, it never says what aspect of the compose is being updated or what 'compose' refers to (a definition file, a running stack, metadata).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set contains create_compose, start_compose, stop_compose, restart_compose, test_compose and remove_compose, and the description gives the agent no basis for choosing update_compose over any of them or for understanding prerequisites.

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