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 behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. It does not disclose whether removal is forced, whether the container must be stopped first, whether associated volumes/networks are affected, or what the response looks like; only the verb "remove" hints at a destructive mutation.

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 tight and front-loaded with no filler, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication for a destructive operation.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the description is completely inadequate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is present.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented `id` parameter but adds nothing. It never says whether `id` is a container ID or name, nor whether additional flags (force, volumes) are available.

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 container" states a concrete verb and resource, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from neighboring tools such as kill_container, stop_container, prune_containers, or clean_container_log, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone how removal differs from those operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus stop_container or kill_container, nor any precondition (e.g. container must be stopped first), nor a warning about irreversibility. The agent must infer usage entirely from the noun in the name.

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