VPS_updateProjectV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that data volumes are preserved, which is helpful. However, it does not mention potential downtime, authentication needs, or whether the project must be running. The volume preservation detail is a plus.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core action, followed by an important behavioral note (volume preservation) and then typical use cases. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context: what it does, what it preserves, and when to use it. It could mention whether the project must exist or be running, but overall it is mostly 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it updates a Docker Compose project by pulling latest images and recreating containers, which differentiates it from create/delete/restart siblings. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like VPS_createNewProjectV1 or VPS_restartProjectV1.

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 gives specific use cases (deploy updates, apply config changes, refresh images) but does not provide exclusions or mention when not to use it, nor does it suggest alternative tools. It implies usage but lacks 'when not to use' guidance.

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