update_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no permission requirements, no statement of whether changes are reversible, whether the container restarts, or what happens to config fields not supplied. For a mutation tool with a fully opaque payload this is a serious gap.

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 words is not conciseness but under-specification; there is no front-loaded useful information because there is no information at all.

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 annotations, no output schema, an opaque nested config object, and a 0% documented schema, the definition leaves an agent unable to invoke the tool correctly. Nothing compensates for the structured-data gaps.

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, and the description adds no meaning. The 'config' parameter is an undocumented nested object, so the agent has no idea what keys it accepts or what the update actually changes.

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' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, with no indication of what aspect of the container is updated or how it differs from rename_container, upgrade_container, or update_compose. It states a verb and resource but adds no distinguishing detail.

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 the many sibling alternatives (rename_container, upgrade_container, start/stop/restart_container). The agent must infer that 'update' means something distinct from rename or upgrade, which is not established anywhere.

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