delete_container

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavior of stopping the container if running. However, it omits other important details such as what happens if the container does not exist, whether data is permanently lost, or any required permissions. The description adds useful context but is not fully transparent for a mutation tool.

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 short (two sentences plus an args line) and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the args section is redundant with the schema and could be omitted. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, losing a point for the unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 required parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core purpose and main behavioral nuance (auto-stopping). It does not explain return values or error handling, but the output schema likely covers the return structure. It is reasonably complete for a straightforward delete operation, though mentioning permanence would help.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats the parameter name ('Container name that should be deleted') without adding semantic details like format, validation rules, or examples. While the parameter is simple (single string), the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's title and type.

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 tool's purpose: 'Delete a container by its name.' It specifies a unique action (delete) and resource (container), and distinguishes from siblings like 'stop_container' (only stops) and 'container_start' (starts). The added behavior 'Stops it first if it's still running' further clarifies the scope.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use the tool: when you want to delete a container. It implies that prior stopping is unnecessary, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if you only want to stop) or mention alternative tools. Given the context signals listing many sibling tools, some exclusion guidance would improve clarity.

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