gatekeeper_delete_image

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

Annotations already supply destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the local-host scope but does not disclose behavior around the force flag, tag handling, or failures caused by images in use.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or restatement of the name. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope.

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?

The tool is destructive, has no output schema, and offers no parameter documentation, yet the description does not mention what happens on success or failure, or the role of `force` and `tag`. An agent may call it with only `image` and be surprised by behavior when the image is in use.

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 needed to clarify `force` and `tag`, but it mentions neither. The required `image` parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the optional parameters' semantics and defaults remain ambiguous.

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 ('Delete'), resource ('Docker image'), and scope ('local Docker host'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as gatekeeper_delete_container or gatekeeper_delete_project, which target different resources.

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 intended use is implied by the action and resource: use this when a Docker image on the local host must be removed. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, prerequisite information such as image existence, or mention of alternatives.

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