Update container config

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'patch' verb, implying modification without destruction, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., unspecified keys preserved or reset). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Single sentence with examples, no unnecessary words. Front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 is sufficient for a simple patch operation, but lacks details on return value, error handling, or behavior when config keys conflict. With no output schema and moderate complexity, more context would help.

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 33% (only config has a description). The description adds an example for config ({'cores':2,'memory':1024}) but provides no help for node or vmid parameters, which are 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 clearly states the verb 'patch', the resource 'LXC container configuration keys', and provides specific examples (cores, memory, net0, features). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_container_resources or update_vm_config.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_container_resources. It implies general use for arbitrary config keys but lacks guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites (e.g., container must exist).

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