Remove a network

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/idempotentHint annotations by disclosing the human confirmation step, that the confirmation names what will be removed, and that declining results in no mutation at all. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first gives the action and its precondition, the second gives the confirmation semantics. Nothing is redundant or 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, a schema describing the parameter, and an output schema present, the description only needed to add the destructive-flow context, which it does. It could say slightly more about failure behavior (e.g. what happens if the network is missing), but nothing essential is absent.

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 100% and the single 'network' parameter is fully documented (name or id, format pattern). The description adds only the mild hint that the identifier is echoed in the confirmation prompt, so baseline 3 applies.

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 network') plus a hard precondition ('no container may be attached'), which separates it instantly from create_network, inspect_network and list_networks. An agent knows exactly which operation this is without opening the 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?

The precondition 'no container may be attached' effectively says when the call will fail, so the agent knows to detach containers first. It does not name an explicit alternative (e.g. disconnecting containers), which is the only gap.

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