context_rm

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the 'force' parameter (removes even if current context) and specifying the return dict format. It does not deepen the safety profile significantly, but the force option is a useful disclosure beyond 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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then systematically documents arguments and return value. Every sentence is necessary and contributes directly to understanding. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It could mention error conditions (e.g., context not found) or permanence, but for a removal tool with good annotations, it is largely 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain parameters. It does so: 'name - Context name to remove' and 'force - Force removal even if the context is the current one.' This adds clear, actionable meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 Docker CLI context,' specifying the verb 'remove' and the resource 'Docker CLI context.' This distinctly differentiates the tool from siblings like context_create, context_inspect, and context_use, which have different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. While it implicitly indicates removal is appropriate when a context should be deleted, it lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision-making support.

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