image_remove

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description details failure conditions, blocking behavior of running containers, and side-effect of removing parent layers, providing essential operational 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and each sentence adds value. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise if parameter details were integrated into schema descriptions.

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 all critical aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, failure scenarios, prerequisites (untagging), and return type (bool). It is thorough given the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and effect (id_or_name, force, noprune), including behavior and recommended use.

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 opens with 'Remove a local image by name or id,' which is a clear, specific verb+resource statement. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like image_tag, image_prune, and container_remove by focusing on image removal.

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 explicitly states when the tool fails without `force` (multiple tags or stopped containers) and that running containers always block removal. It advises to untag first with `image_tag` as an alternative, and explains `noprune` usage.

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