remove_compose

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, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether removal is destructive or irreversible, whether running containers/images/volumes are torn down, or whether confirmation is required for a delete-style operation.

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 words are technically tight, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded information an agent can act on. Brevity here costs correctness.

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?

A destructive, annotation-free tool with an undocumented required parameter and no output schema needs substantial explanation, and the description supplies none. An agent cannot safely call this from the definition alone.

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 single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not say whether it is a compose project ID, name, or numeric handle. With no annotation or schema help, the description should compensate but adds nothing.

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?

"Remove compose" restates the tool name (remove_compose) almost verbatim, adding no verb nuance or scope. It does convey the resource is a compose project, but nothing distinguishes it from the many sibling compose operations beyond the bare word 'remove'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of stop_compose, clean_compose_log, or list_composes, and no preconditions (e.g., whether the stack must be stopped first). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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