buildx_remove

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: it returns a dict with returncode/stdout/stderr, and explains parameters like keep_state and force that affect removal behavior. No contradictions with annotations.

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 highly concise: one-line purpose, bullet-pointed arguments with clear labels, and a returns line. Every sentence 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?

For a straightforward removal tool, the description covers inputs, output type, and key mutex constraint. It lacks error handling details or preconditions, but given the lack of output schema and annotations providing safety profile, it's reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'Keep the BuildKit state volume' for keep_state). All 5 parameters are described, adding clarity beyond the schema names.

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 builder instance,' directly conveying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like buildx_create or buildx_inspect, and the parameter listing further clarifies its scope.

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 implies usage by listing parameters but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over siblings like buildx_prune. It lacks context about prerequisites or when removal is appropriate, though the mutex note on name/all_inactive helps some.

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