portainer_container_remove

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists parameters. It does not mention whether removal requires the container to be stopped, whether force removal is destructive, or any irreversible side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is extremely concise with a clear front-loaded purpose statement followed by a clean parameter list. No extraneous text exists; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, one required, has output schema), the description is mostly adequate but lacks important behavioral context. An agent might not know if the tool can remove a running container without force, or what errors to expect. The presence of an output schema somewhat mitigates the need for return value info, but missing behavioral details reduces completeness.

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 must provide parameter semantics. It does so adequately: clarifies container_id as 'ID or name', force as 'Force removal of a running container (default false)', and endpoint_id as 'Target endpoint ID (uses default if omitted)'. This adds meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 states 'Remove a container.' This is a clear and specific verb+resource combination. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like portainer_container_stop or portainer_container_restart, which deal with different 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stopping or restarting a container. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or prerequisites.

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