delete_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the stop-before-delete behavior, destructive/irreversible nature, and the two-phase confirmation flow — all beyond what the schema implies. This is strong transparency.

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: three core sentences plus parameter explanations. The most critical safety note (destructive, preview first) is front-loaded, and 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?

The description covers the key behaviors, safety mechanism, and parameters. An output schema exists, so return values are likely defined elsewhere. It does not mention prerequisites like container existence or permissions, but for a container deletion with a confirmation flag, this is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains both parameters: container_name is the name to delete, and confirm must be True to actually delete (default False). No ambiguity remains.

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 (delete), resource (container), and the specific condition (stops it first if running). It distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_container (which only stops) and container_restart, and flags it as destructive and irreversible.

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?

It gives explicit guidance on when to use confirm=True vs False, emphasizing that the default previews and only explicit user consent triggers deletion. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., stop_container) for the 'just stop' case, but the context is clear enough to infer.

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