arcane_delete_container

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Delete/remove' implies a destructive action, but it does not state that the container and its writable layers are permanently destroyed, nor does it mention any associated volumes or network effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and directly states the action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it an example of appropriate minimalism.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate with behavioral context. It is too minimal to fully inform an agent about the consequences of deletion, exception scenarios, or confirmation requirements. This is particularly important for a destructive tool and makes the description incomplete.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (containerId and environmentId), covering 100% of them. The tool description adds no additional meaning, such as explaining the relationship between the parameters or required permissions. As per the rubric, the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no extra value is added.

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 'Delete/remove a container' clearly identifies the action (delete/remove) and the resource (container). It distinguishes from sibling tools that act on different resources (e.g., arcane_delete_environment) or different container operations (e.g., arcane_stop_container), though it could be more explicit about whether it deletes permanently or just removes.

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 tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that deleting a container is irreversible, whether it stops the container first, or compare with arcane_stop_container or arcane_remove_image. No usage context is provided.

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