Delete Container

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone through the API'), cascading deletion of workspaces/tags/versions, and the live impact on sites loading the container's snippet.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the most important caveats. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 destructive top-level operation, the description covers the essential consequences: cascade scope, irreversibility, and snippet/tag impact. It does not mention permissions or error conditions, but the output schema and parameter descriptions cover invocation details.

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%, so account_id and container_id are already adequately documented. The description adds no extra meaning or format details for the parameters, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a container') and immediately communicates the cascading scope ('every workspace, tag and version'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete_* tools that target lower-level 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 explicit: this is the tool for deleting a container. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state prerequisites, but the container-level scope makes the usage context clear.

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