Resize container disk

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

The description discloses the size syntax and volume types, adding value beyond annotations. However, it does not mention whether the container must be stopped, if resizing is live, or any prerequisites.

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: first defines purpose, second provides usage examples. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the basic operation and size syntax, but lacks information on return values, side effects, or operational constraints. Given no output schema, a richer description would improve completeness.

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% with 'disk' and 'size' having descriptions; the description adds format details ('+N', '20G') and examples ('rootfs', 'mp0') for 'disk', aiding interpretation. Node and vmid remain undocumented.

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 title and description clearly state the tool resizes an LXC container volume, with examples of volume identifiers (rootfs, mp0) and size formats. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'resize_vm_disk' for VMs.

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 LXC containers but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like 'resize_vm_disk' or specify when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or conditionals.

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