Обновление реестра контейнеров

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the behavioral constraint that the registry name is immutable, which is not present in annotations or schema. It also clarifies the 'custom configuration' mode but does not disclose side effects such as billing changes or service impact, keeping it slightly below a perfect score.

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 succinct sentences: the first states the action and modifiable parameters, the second states a key limitation. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.

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?

While the description covers the core action and fields, it omits that at least one of the updatable parameters should be provided (the schema only requires registry_id), which could lead an agent to make an empty update call. It also doesn't mention the effect of changes on the registry, leaving some gaps for a complete operational understanding.

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?

The schema provides full coverage for all 5 parameters, including mutual exclusivity rules. The description adds value by summarizing the three modifiable categories (description, preset, custom config) and noting the name restriction, which is not in the schema. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 the verb 'Изменяет' (changes) and specifies the resource 'реестр контейнеров' (container registry), enumerating the exact parameters that can be updated: description, preset_id, configurator_id+disk. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling create/delete/get/list tools and further clarifies scope by stating that the registry name cannot be changed.

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 existing registry settings and explicitly states that the name cannot be changed, which serves as a clear when-not for renaming. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., create_container_registry) for other operations, so it falls short of a 5.

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