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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds real context the annotations don't: the deletion is permanent, it is scoped to the signed-in user's own stacks, and it requires sign-in. It doesn't cover what happens on an unknown id or whether dependent artifacts are affected.

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 with zero filler; the destructive verb and scope lead, followed by the call condition and the auth requirement in priority order.

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 one-parameter mutation with an output schema and strong annotations, this covers safety, auth, and confirmation. The remaining gap is id provenance and not-found behavior, which is a modest omission rather than a blocking one.

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% for the single `id` parameter, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the id refers to the user's saved stack, but gives no format, no source (list_saved_stacks / get_saved_stack), and no behavior for a missing or malformed id.

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 ("Permanently delete ... saved stacks") plus the scoping constraint ("one of the signed-in user's ... by id"), which cleanly separates it from get_saved_stack, update_saved_stack, and list_saved_stacks in the sibling set.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition ("Only call it when the user explicitly asks to delete that stack") and a workflow precondition ("confirm the name first"), which is genuine when/when-not guidance. It stops short of a 5 because it never names an alternative tool (e.g., get_saved_stack or list_saved_stacks) for locating the target.

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