delete_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does well by stating the operation is destructive, irreversible, and that the default confirm=False performs no deletion. This clearly sets expectations about 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 compact and well-structured, using short paragraphs and bullet-like Args entries. Every sentence adds necessary information about behavior or parameters, with no fluff.

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?

It covers the destructive nature, the preview mode, and the explicit confirmation requirement, which is the critical context for this tool. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return-value details, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 Args section explains image_name as the image to be deleted and confirm as the flag that must be True to perform deletion, defaulting to False. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though image_name format is not detailed.

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 deletes a Docker image by tag or ID, and highlights the force behavior with stopped containers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_container and list_images.

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 explicitly explains the two-phase confirm flow: confirm=False previews, confirm=True actually deletes, and only after explicit user agreement. It does not compare against alternative tools, but it gives clear operational guidance for safe usage.

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