delete_image

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. It simply states the action without noting that deletion is permanent, may fail if the image is in use, or that the 'force' parameter affects behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler words or redundancy. It is efficiently front-loaded and entirely on-topic, earning the maximum score for conciseness.

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 simple delete operation, the description is arguably too terse. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least mention potential outcomes (e.g., success/failure indicators) or consequences (e.g., image removal may be blocked if in use). The provided text leaves the agent without enough behavioral context.

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 100%, with each parameter (force, imageId, environmentId) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents them well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Delete a Docker image' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (Docker image), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pull_image and portainer_cleanup_unused_images. However, it lacks any additional scope detail (e.g., 'from a Portainer environment') that would make the purpose fully unambiguous, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where a different tool (e.g., cleanup unused images) would be more appropriate.

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