container_update

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the copy/sha256/docker cp/dpkg-deb -I/dpkg -i sequence, that it waits for srvinfo, and what it reports (new version and log Error lines). However it never explains the `force` flag, whether an install is reversible/rollback-able, or what happens to the running container during dpkg -i, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a mutating 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?

One front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical pipeline list and a second sentence for the hard preconditions; nearly every clause carries information. It is dense but not padded, though the parenthetical stage list is slightly harder to scan than a short bulleted sequence would be.

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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the execution steps, the backup gate, the confirm requirement, and the reported outputs. The only notable hole is the semantics of `force`, which an agent would need in order to know when to escalate.

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 coverage is 50%: `deb` and `confirm` are documented in the schema, and the description adds the meaning of skipBackupCheck (bypasses the 24 h backup freshness check). The undocumented `force` parameter is left entirely unexplained, so the description only half compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Installs a local .deb into the P5 container') and enumerates the pipeline stages, so it is unmistakably a deploy/install operation and clearly distinct from the sibling container_backup/start/stop/status tools.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: a backup newer than 24 h is required unless skipBackupCheck, and confirm:true must be supplied. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it (e.g. use container_backup first), but the prerequisites effectively scope invocation.

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