volume_remove

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains the failure condition, the consequence of force=True (containers keep references but lose underlying data), and the prerequisite action. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of side effects without relying solely on 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, logically ordered from high-level behavior to failure handling to parameter docs, and every sentence contributes. The Args/Returns section is a clear structural aid for an AI agent needing quick extraction.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations already marking write/destructive behavior, the description adds the only contextual gaps: volume-contaminant failure, force semantics, data-loss risk, and routing to volume_prune. There is no missing information needed to call 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: name is 'volume name to remove' and force is 'remove even if a container still references the volume,' adding behavioral meaning that a bare boolean schema field would not convey.

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?

States a specific action ('remove a single volume by name') and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from volume_prune by noting the single-volume scope. The name alone is no good, but the opening sentence removes any doubt about what is being removed.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule: use for a single volume and use volume_prune for bulk cleanup of unreferenced volumes. It also states the prerequisite explicitly: remove or recreate referencing containers first, or pass force=True, which makes the choice behavior obvious.

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