Dpanel Container Upgrade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core mechanic: a new image is pulled and the container is rebuilt while configuration is preserved. Missing is any statement about downtime/recreation impact, irreversibility, or what the default-true enable_bak actually backs up — meaningful gaps for a mutating, rebuild-style operation.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation is stated first and the parameter hint second. Efficient, though extremely terse for the operation's weight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Nonetheless, for a container-rebuild tool with an undocumented required md5 and an undocumented enable_bak flag, the definition leaves an agent without enough to call it confidently; it is minimally viable rather than 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters. The description explains only image_tag semantics (empty = original image) and says nothing about the required md5 identifier or the enable_bak default-true backup flag, so two of three parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb+resource with a clear mechanic: '升级容器（拉新镜像并重建，保留配置）' — pull the new image and rebuild while keeping config. This distinguishes it from a config-level sibling like dpanel_container_update, though it never explicitly names that sibling or the upgrade_list/upgrade_check pair.

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 gives one genuine usage rule — 'image_tag 留空用原镜像' (leave image_tag empty to reuse the existing image) — which tells an agent how to call it in the default case. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over dpanel_container_update or the upgrade_check sibling, and no prerequisites are stated.

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