badge_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains deterministic placement, automatic container membership, icon resolution order (built-in master then local folder), error-handling behavior, and the return value (shape_id). This is strong transparency for a mutation-style tool.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, placement behavior, icon resolution, error guidance, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description does well by covering return value, side effects, and resolution behavior. Minor gaps remain around page selection semantics and size_in interpretation, but defaults and enum values in the schema partially cover those.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain icon resolution and implies container_id through 'container', but it does not explain the page parameter or the meaning/units of size_in, and corner is only indirectly referenced as 'the chosen corner'. Some parameter semantics are left to inference.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Badge a container (zone) with a small header icon.' It gives concrete examples (VNet, Subnet/Subscription icons) and clarifies this is a container-scoped operation, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_container or drop_shape.

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 communicates the intended use case well: badging containers with small header icons, with illustrative examples. It does not explicitly name alternative tools as 'use this instead of X', but the container-specific scope and deterministic placement make the appropriate context clear.

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