remove_container

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: captures inspect before deletion, no undo, high risk, and parameter effects (force, remove_volumes). This exceeds the minimum needed for safe invocation.

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 concise with a clear header, risk notice, explanation of behavior, and a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what the tool does, its irreversible nature, audit trail, and parameter roles. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, but the description provides a clear Args block explaining each parameter (container_id, force, remove_volumes, dry_run, target). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's field names and defaults.

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 'Remove a container' and distinguishes this destructive action from sibling tools like start, stop, restart. The verb 'remove' and resource 'container' are explicit, and the context signals list many container-related siblings, making the purpose distinct.

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 mentions 'No undo' and 'Pass dry_run=True to preview', guiding safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stop_container for graceful shutdown). Still, the context implies this is for permanent removal.

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