Dpanel Container Upgrade Ignore

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the mutation. It does not say whether the ignore entry is reversible or how to remove it, what permission/scope is needed, whether it affects only the local node, or what the response contains beyond the existing output schema.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and nothing is padded. It is efficient but so terse that brevity comes at the cost of content rather than through it.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, two undocumented parameters, and no explanation of the md5/image_id distinction, the description is not sufficient to call the tool correctly. Only the existence of an output schema relieves it of describing return values.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds nothing. The required 'md5' is genuinely ambiguous (md5 of an image? of a container? of an upgrade plan?) and 'image_id' is never mentioned, so an agent cannot confidently populate either field.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('ignore container upgrade') and adds the state change (added to the ignore list), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like dpanel_container_upgrade_check or dpanel_container_upgrade_list. It does not, however, contrast itself against those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of the other upgrade tools (upgrade, upgrade_check, upgrade_list), nor any stated precondition such as having run a check first. The 'adds to ignore list' phrasing implies a follow-up action but leaves the triggering context to inference.

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