container_remove

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

Despite annotations already marking destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial context: deletion of the writable layer, refusal to remove running containers without force, and refusal to remove the server's own container when containerized. It also explains volume behavior and force semantics, which are not inferable from annotations alone.

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?

Well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a focused paragraph on key behaviors and edge cases, then a clean arg list and return type. No redundancy or fluff; every sentence provides distinct value.

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 tool's purpose, side effects, edge cases (running containers, own container), parameter semantics, and return value. Given the tool's complexity and 4 parameters, this is complete and self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully with an 'args' section explaining every parameter: id_or_name, volumes (anonymous only), link, and force (with default). This adds meaning beyond raw schema types and defaults.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a container, deleting its writable layer.' It clearly distinguishes from image_remove and clarifies that named volumes are not removed, setting it apart from related tools like volume_remove.

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?

Provides explicit alternatives and limitations: 'the image is untouched (`image_remove` deletes images); named volumes are never removed — volumes=True only covers anonymous ones.' Also states running containers are refused unless force=True, giving concrete usage conditions. This goes beyond vague 'use for removal' guidance.

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