portainer_stack_update

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions update and redeploy behavior, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., container restart, auth requirements, rollback). Some transparency, but missing key mutation details.

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?

Description is concise: one sentence plus a bullet list of arguments. Main action is front-loaded. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 description covers the main purpose and all parameters. An output schema exists, so return details are not required. However, it omits error scenarios or success indicators, which could be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 0%, but the description explains each parameter: stack_id as ID, compose_content as YAML, endpoint_id as derived. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though format details are minimal.

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 clearly states the tool updates an existing stack, with optional new compose content. It distinguishes from siblings like stack_deploy (create) and stack_inspect, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for updating or redeploying existing stacks, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like stack_deploy or stack_start/stop. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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