remove_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses permanent removal, data deletion, and the preview/confirm two-step behavior. It also notes that user agreement is required before confirming. This is highly transparent for a destructive operation.

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-organized with a clear opening statement, behavior explanation, and structured Args section. It is not overly verbose, though the Args section partially duplicates the schema; the added explanations justify the length. All sentences carry meaningful information.

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 destructive nature, the description covers the core action, the confirm mechanism, and both parameters. It doesn't mention error cases or return details, but the output schema presumably handles returns. Minor gaps like failure states or idempotency are not critical for a tool with clear confirm semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section fully explains both parameters: project_name as the unique stack identifier and confirm as a boolean that must be True to perform removal, defaulting to False. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 it 'Stops and permanently removes a compose stack: containers, networks, and volumes (data is deleted).' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes from siblings like stop_stack (which stops but doesn't remove) and delete_container (which removes a single container). The permanent removal and data deletion are explicit.

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 description explains the critical two-step usage: the first call (confirm=False) only previews, and confirm=True is required for actual removal after user agreement. This is a clear usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as stop_stack or delete_container, so the when-to-use vs alternatives is implied rather than stated.

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