Remove a container

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds real value beyond them: force stops the container first, volumes kills anonymous volumes, and the data is irrecoverably gone with a confirm-first protocol. It doesn't address failure modes or what happens to named volumes, but the added behavioral detail is substantive.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: purpose and option semantics first, then the irreversible consequence plus required action. No filler, and the consequence is front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation's impact, both optional flags, and the confirmation requirement. Only error/partial-failure behavior is unaddressed, which is minor for a removal tool.

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 only 33% (only 'container' is documented), so the description must carry the other two parameters — and it does, explaining force as stop-then-remove and volumes as anonymous-volume removal. This fully compensates for the two undocumented booleans, falling short of 5 only because 'its anonymous volumes' could be clearer about named volumes being unaffected.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a container'), and the force clause clarifies how this differs from stop_container (it stops the container only as a means to removal). It never names a sibling alternative or scoping condition, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 clear context for use and a strong precondition: confirm with the person, naming the container, before destroying data. It does not, however, contrast with the other candidates an agent would weigh (stop_container for a stoppable-but-kept container, prune for bulk cleanup, remove_volume for orphaned volumes).

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