recreate_stack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It explicitly states the tool is a write operation with high risk, has no undo, captures the stack definition for audit, and requires a target. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is well-structured with a bold first line summarizing risk, followed by a brief explanation, and a clear Args list. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given the complexity of a high-risk mutation tool and no output schema, the description explains the process (audit capture, no undo) but does not describe the return value or what happens on success/failure. It is mostly complete but missing output 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in the Args section: stack_id (Portainer stack id), endpoint_id (omit to use own), dry_run (preview), and target (from config or default).

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 clearly states the tool redeploys (recreates) a Portainer stack with the verb 'Redeploy' and resource 'Portainer stack'. It distinguishes from sibling stack tools (list_stacks, stack_detail) by focusing on the recreation action, and adds specificity with 'No undo' and audit capture.

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?

Provides clear context: it's a high-risk write operation with no undo, requires a portainer target, and offers a dry-run preview. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use or compare with alternatives, but the action is unique among siblings, so it's implicit.

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