lattice_force_remove_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 of behavioral disclosure. It labels the tool as 'Destructive' but does not elaborate on the consequences of bypassing the normal lifecycle, such as potential data loss or resource leaks. The description is vague about what exactly happens during a force removal.

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 exceptionally concise with only three sentences (or two sentences and a single word). It is front-loaded with the primary action, then the use case, and finally a tag indicating destrutive nature. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simple tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage scenario adequately. It is missing details about the return value or confirmation of the operation, but the tool's simplicity and the clear sibling distinction make it fairly complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage: 'id' is described as 'Worker ID' and 'name' as 'Container name to force-remove'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('force-remove a container'), the target ('on a worker by name'), and the purpose ('bypassing the normal lifecycle'). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'lattice_remove_container' by emphasizing the forced nature and the wedged container scenario.

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 specifies when to use this tool: 'For clearing a wedged container that ordinary remove will not shift.' This provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives beyond the normal remove, but the guidance is sufficient for the intended use case.

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