delete_container

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by specifying exactly what is destroyed — the container, its database, and all files including S3 bucket contents — and states the action cannot be undone. This gives an agent a complete consequence picture before invoking the tool.

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 tightly written sentences: the first states the action and its full destructive scope, the second states the only permitted invocation condition. Every word earns its place with no 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 tool is simple (one required parameter), the schema fully documents that parameter, an output schema exists, and the annotations agree with a description that covers irreversibility and collateral damage. There is nothing an agent needs to know about invocation that is missing.

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 already fully documents containerId as 'UUID of the container to delete' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'PERMANENTLY delete a container', stating a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by enumerating the full destructive scope (database, files, S3 contents), making clear it is the removal operation, not list, create, wake, or get.

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 explicitly conditions use on 'Only call this when the user has clearly asked for the container to be removed', giving an agent a clear go/no-go signal. It does not name alternatives, but no sibling tool overlaps with this deletion function, so the absence of an explicit exclusion is acceptable.

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