Dpanel Container Delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is destructive, requires confirm=true, and can optionally cascade to image, volume, and link deletion. However, it omits permission requirements, whether running containers can be deleted, irreversibility details, and failure behavior when confirm is false.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The destructive nature and confirm requirement are front-loaded before optional cascading deletions, making the risk profile immediately clear.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive 5-parameter delete tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the key risk warning and most optional flags but leaves the required md5 identifier and operational preconditions unclear.

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 compensate. It meaningfully explains confirm=true and maps the optional delete flags to image/volume/link deletion, covering 4 of 5 parameters. The required md5 parameter remains unexplained, which is a notable gap for a required identifier.

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 a specific verb and resource: deleting a dpanel container, and flags it as destructive. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from close siblings such as dpanel_container_prune or dpanel_compose_destroy, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

It implies the obvious use case (delete a container) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over prune, compose destroy, or other container lifecycle tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated beyond the required confirm=true.

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