docker_remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares destructiveness, the two-step preview/confirm flow, the running-container refusal, that volume removal deletes data, and the NFS nuance where only the setting is stored. These are exactly the risk facts an agent needs before mutating state.

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?

Every sentence adds a distinct operational constraint and the destructive warning is front-loaded. The arbitrary line wrapping splits sentences awkwardly, but no content is wasted.

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 destructive 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description supplies the safety workflow, preconditions, and data-loss caveats, and an output schema exists so return values needn't be described. The unmentioned 'host' parameter is the only meaningful gap.

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 schema provides only bare titles, so the description must compensate. It does: 'kind' is bounded to the four enumerable resource types, 'confirm' is tied to the post-user-approval step, and 'name' is implied as the target object. Only 'host' goes unmentioned, a minor gap.

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 opens with a concrete verb and enumerates the exact resource kinds ('Delete one container, image, volume or network'), and the word 'one' implicitly separates it from the bulk sibling docker_prune. An agent can identify the tool from the first line alone.

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?

It gives an explicit execution sequence ('Shows a preview first. Run again with confirm=true after the user says yes') and a precondition ('A running container is not removed. Stop it first'), which points the agent at docker_container_action. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives outright, so not a 5.

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