docker_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive nature ('Delete') and the requirement that directories need recursive=true, which is valuable beyond the schema. However, it omits error conditions (e.g., behavior on nonexistent paths) and permission requirements, leaving some ambiguity about failure modes.

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 two sentences, with the main action front-loaded. The second sentence adds a necessary constraint without redundancy. Every word 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?

For a simple deletion tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the one non-obvious parameter requirement. It does not address error handling or return values, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's parameter descriptions, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema describes 'path' and 'container', leaving 'recursive' without description. The description adds meaning by clarifying that the path can be a file or directory and that directories require recursive=true, thus compensating for the missing schema coverage. This extra semantic weight justifies a score above the schema-only baseline.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and identifies the resource ('file or directory inside a Docker container'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read/write. The additional note about recursive=true clarifies scope. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 description gives clear context for when to use the tool: to remove a file or directory from a Docker container. It provides a key usage condition—'Directories require recursive=true'—which guides the agent on how to invoke the tool for directories. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, but the context is sufficient for a simple delete operation.

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