Update project

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

Annotations already establish a mutating but non-destructive operation; the description adds the key guarantee that data volumes are preserved during recreation. It also discloses that containers are recreated, giving the agent a realistic picture of the side effect.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the core action, then add a safety guarantee and concrete use cases. There is no filler and every sentence contributes to tool selection or invocation.

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-parameter action with a clear safety profile, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It could mention asynchronous behavior or return value since there is no output schema, but this is a minor gap.

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 100%: projectName documents allowed characters and virtualMachineId is defined. The tool description does not add anything beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Updates'), names the resource ('Docker Compose project'), and explains the mechanism (pulling latest image versions and recreating containers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling lifecycle operations like VPS_restartProject, VPS_startProject, or VPS_stopProject.

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?

It explicitly lists three use cases: deploying application updates, applying configuration changes, and refreshing container images. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over start/stop/restart/delete project tools.

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