upgrade_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, and it discloses nothing: not whether the container is recreated, whether the old image is discarded, whether there is downtime, whether the image must already be pulled, or whether the action is reversible. An agent cannot predict the blast radius of 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?

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: there is no front-loaded explanation of scope or effect to compress. Two words cannot earn their place as a description for a required-arg mutation.

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 destructive-capable container operation with two undocumented required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

Two required parameters (`id`, `image`) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about either. Whether `image` is a new image reference, tag, or ID is entirely unspecified, so an agent must guess at the argument format.

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 is a bare restatement of the tool name: a verb plus resource with no scope, target semantics, or distinguishing detail. It does not set it apart from the many sibling tools that also mutate container state (update_container, recreate_ollama_model-style operations, restart_container, pull_image).

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 zero guidance on when to call this versus update_container, restart_container, or pull_image, all of which sit adjacent in the sibling list and describe overlapping concepts. No preconditions, no exclusions, no alternatives offered.

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