dpanel_image_deleteDelete Docker images by sha256 digest array. Requires confirm=true for destructive operations, preventing accidental image removal.
删除镜像（破坏性，需 confirm=true）。md5 为镜像 sha256 digest 数组。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| md5 | Yes | ||
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the two most important traits — the operation is destructive and gated behind confirm=true. It stops short of consequences: what happens if the image is in use, whether deletion is irreversible, or any auth requirement.
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 tight sentences with no filler, and the destructive warning plus the confirm gate are front-loaded. Efficient and appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.
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 no explanation. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations the description leaves real gaps: no statement about images in use, irreversibility, or failure modes, which an agent would want before deleting.
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, and it partially does: md5 is clarified as an array of image sha256 digests (a useful correction given the misleading name) and confirm is explained via the confirm=true requirement. It omits confirm's default of false and the behavior when confirm is absent or false.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (delete image) and flags it as destructive, which is clear on its own. It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling dpanel_image_prune, so an agent must infer which removal operation applies.
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 a precondition (confirm=true) but no when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as dpanel_image_prune or dpanel_image_tag_delete. Nothing tells the agent when deletion is the right call versus pruning dangling images.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.