remove_bind_mount_container

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying safety. It explicitly states 'DESTRUCTIVE' and 'Requires confirm=True,' which is critical and goes beyond the schema by indicating that the operation is destructive and will not proceed without confirmation. It doesn't detail other side effects, but the main danger is addressed.

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 two sentences, with the main action first and the critical safety note second. Every word is purposeful, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the description doesn't explain what mp_key is or what the return value will be (no output schema). The destructive warning provides important context, but parameter ambiguity leaves gaps for correct invocation. More detail on the parameters and usage context would improve completeness.

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 explain parameters. It only adds meaning to 'confirm' (must be true) but doesn't clarify node, vmid, or mp_key. The term 'mp_key' is not self-explanatory, and the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action: 'Remove a mount point from an LXC container.' The verb 'Remove' and resource 'mount point' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_bind_mount_container or delete_container. The DESTRUCTIVE note reinforces that this is a removal operation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for removing a bind mount, nor does it point to add_bind_mount_container for adding one. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.

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