image_remove

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses critical behavior: failures without force, the non-overridable block from running containers, and the side-effect of pruning untagged parent layers controlled by noprune. This provides substantial context about consequences and prerequisites.

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 well-organized with a clear opening action, a behavioral caveats paragraph, and an args list. Every sentence adds essential information without fluff, making it appropriately sized for a destructive image operation.

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 destructive nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what happens under various conditions, parameter semantics, and return value. It leaves no critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 args section thoroughly explains each parameter, including that id_or_name can include tag/digest, force overrides specific blockers, and noprune preserves parent layers. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema definitions (which have empty descriptions), compensating for the 0% schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a local image by name or id.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like image_prune (which removes unused images) and image_tag (which manages tags), and the detailed semantics of force/noprune further clarify its unique role.

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 removal fails without force (multiple tags or stopped containers) and mentions untagging with image_tag as an alternative first step. It also explains that running containers always block removal, giving clear usage boundaries and a direct pointer to a sibling tool.

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