Update container CPU/memory/swap

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it is a convenience wrapper, but does not disclose behavioral details like whether resizing requires the container to be stopped, or any side effects.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the purpose effectively.

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 fairly complete for a simple wrapper tool, explaining its relationship to update_container_config. However, it could add context about error handling or return values, but is sufficient given no output schema.

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 50% (swap and memory have descriptions, disk_size_gb has a description, node and vmid have none). The tool description does not add parameter-level details beyond listing the resources, so it does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool resizes CPU, memory, swap, and disk in one call, and identifies it as a convenience wrapper around update_container_config. It distinguishes from the general config tool and specific resizing tools like resize_container_disk.

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 when resizing multiple resources simultaneously, but does not explicitly state when to use update_container_config instead or mention prerequisites. The sibling context (e.g., update_container_config) provides some guidance.

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