buildx_rm

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is clear. The description adds parameter details like force and keep_state but does not elaborate on consequences (e.g., what happens to state if keep_state is false). It does not contradict annotations. With annotations present, the description provides adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 (8 lines), leads with the purpose, and uses a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate sections), but overall efficient and easy to parse.

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 purpose, all parameters, and return type. However, it lacks prerequisites (e.g., builder must exist), default behavior when no parameters are set, and details on when force or keep_state are appropriate. Given the tool has 5 optional parameters and is destructive, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter (e.g., 'name - Builder name to remove (mutually exclusive with all_inactive)'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and defaults, though explanations are brief and could include more detail (e.g., effect of keep_daemon).

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's action: 'Remove a builder instance.' This is a specific verb ('remove') combined with a specific resource ('builder instance'), which unambiguously defines its purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like buildx_create or buildx_inspect.

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 lists parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like when to use force or keep_state, nor does it compare with other removal tools (e.g., buildx_prune). Usage context is only implied.

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