volume_remove

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

The description adds rich behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it explains that the tool fails if any container still references the volume, and that force=True bypasses this but leaves containers pointing to missing data. This informs the agent about consequences and state changes, with no contradictions to the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint 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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a necessary behavioral caveat, an alternative-tool pointer, and a clear args/returns list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 removal tool, the description covers the failure mode, force behavior, alternative usage, parameter semantics, and return value. It is fully self-contained, especially given the annotations and schema already present. No significant gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates with an args section clarifying each parameter: 'name - Volume name to remove' and 'force - Remove even if a container still references the volume.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 clearly states the verb and resource. It further distinguishes from volume_prune by explicitly contrasting single-volume removal with bulk cleanup, eliminating ambiguity among sibling tools.

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 explicitly advises when to use volume_prune instead ('For bulk cleanup of volumes with no container references at all, use volume_prune instead') and explains the failure condition with containers plus the force option. This provides clear, actionable guidance for appropriate usage.

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