volume_remove

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses critical behavior: it fails if any container references the volume, force=True lets removal proceed but containers lose underlying data, and it returns a bool. This adds significant context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 tightly written with a clear structure: purpose, failure behavior, alternative, and then a structured args/returns section. Every sentence contributes meaning without 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 removal tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, failure modes, force behavior, the alternative tool, parameter meanings, and return type. No significant gaps.

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?

Since the schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'name' as the volume name and 'force' as permitting removal despite container references. This is complete semantic 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 opens with 'Remove a single volume by name,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from other volume tools. It also contrasts with volume_prune by noting bulk cleanup, cementing the differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'For bulk cleanup of volumes with no container references at all, use volume_prune instead.' It also describes the failure condition when containers reference the volume, giving clear context for when force is appropriate.

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