network_remove

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint true, but description adds valuable behavioral context: failure conditions (attached containers), permanent errors for built-in networks, and the boolean return value. This goes beyond the structured annotations to inform the agent of side effects and edge cases.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and organized into logical parts: main function, edge cases, alternative, and args/returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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, the description covers all necessary context: operation, failure modes, alternatives, parameter meaning, and return type. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for detailed return descriptions, making this fully complete.

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 only defines id_or_name as a string with no description. The description explicitly documents it as 'The network id or name', adding necessary semantics. It is concise but slightly terse; could mention that 'name' refers to custom networks only, though that is implied by the first sentence.

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 single custom network by id or name', using a specific verb and resource with clear scope. It explicitly distinguishes from network_prune, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: fails if containers attached, so disconnect or stop first; built-in networks cannot be removed; and for bulk cleanup use network_prune. These exclusions and alternatives provide strong direction.

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