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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the sentence 'This is a destructive operation' largely restates structured data. The description does add real value by disclosing the scope of destruction (all addons and manifests are removed with the stack), but it omits irreversibility, whether restore points are preserved, and any protection/precondition 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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and its blast radius front-loaded before the destructive warning.

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 high-impact delete with no output schema, the description covers the 'what' but not the operational context an agent needs before calling it – irreversibility, whether a protected/restore-point-backed stack behaves differently, or what happens on partial failure. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%; cluster_id documents UUID format and points to list_clusters, and stack_name is self-explanatory. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a whole stack from a cluster, and clarifies the cascade to addons/manifests. It is clear what is destroyed, but it does not distinguish this from adjacent siblings such as delete_stack_profile or uninstall_addon_from_stack, so an agent must rely on the name alone to disambiguate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the stack must be unprotected first, given the protect_stack/unprotect_stack siblings), and no mention of alternatives for narrower deletions. 'This is a destructive operation' is a warning, not usage guidance.

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