image_remove

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description details failure modes (multiple tags, stopped containers, running containers always block), force behavior, and noprune side-effects. This is extensive behavioral context that helps prevent misuse.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by specific behavioral nuances, then an args block. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan.

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 destructive image removal tool, the description covers all necessary context: parameters, failure conditions, side-effects, and return value. Despite no output schema details, the return type is stated. The description is complete for safe and correct usage.

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 coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: id_or_name, force, and noprune. It adds meaning beyond names, including the effect of force and noprune, and even states the return type.

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 local image by name or id' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like image_prune and image_tag by focusing on removing a single named image and addressing tagging/container references.

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 clear context on when removal succeeds/fails, including prerequisites like untagging with image_tag when multiple tags exist. It doesn't explicitly compare against alternative removal tools like image_prune, but the usage conditions are well explained.

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