network_remove

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

Annotations indicate destructive behavior, but the description adds actionable details: fails if containers are attached, built-in networks always error, and returns True after removal. No contradiction with 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 compact yet information-dense, front-loading purpose and following with failure modes, alternatives, and parameter/return details. Every sentence contributes 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, failure scenarios, alternatives, parameter meaning, and return value. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining id_or_name as 'The network id or name'. This directly adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only specifies type string.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Remove') and resource ('a single custom network by id or name'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like network_prune and network_disconnect, making the scope explicit.

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 usage context: when to use (single custom network), failure conditions (attached containers must be disconnected), built-in network restrictions, and an alternative for bulk cleanup (network_prune). Clearly differentiates from related tools.

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