containers_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses the destructive scope (stored site data is removed), the concrete failure mode and error codes, the known race with browser UI, and that no cleanup happens automatically. It does not state permission/auth requirements or explicitly flag irreversibility of the removed data.

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?

Five short sentences, action first, caveats after, zero filler. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic ("Refuses open tabs with CONTAINER_IN_USE and tab_ids"), but nothing is wasted and the ordering prioritizes what an agent needs before calling.

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 two-param destructive tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers preconditions, failure behavior, and profile scoping. The remaining hole is the container identifier's source, which leaves one required parameter under-specified for a delete operation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only half does. It explains profile_id's provenance (profiles_list) and that object IDs are profile-local and non-portable, but never explains what cookie_store_id is or how to obtain it — the reader must infer the link between "named Firefox container" and that parameter name.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Remove a named Firefox container and its stored site data") with the side effect (data deletion) named up front. It is trivially distinguishable from containers_list, containers_create, and containers_update without opening any schema.

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 real precondition and the remedy: close tabs explicitly first, otherwise the call fails with CONTAINER_IN_USE plus tab_ids. It also tells the agent where profile_id comes from (profiles_list). It stops short of naming the sibling that supplies the container identifier (containers_list), which would have made routing fully deterministic.

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