icp_manage_canister

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the actions without disclosing that 'delete' is destructive, that stopping a canister makes it unavailable, or any permission/reversibility details. The agent has no warning about side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the tool's resource and actions without wasted words. It is concise and easy to skim, though slightly more detail could have been included without harming conciseness.

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 that this tool has a destructive action (delete), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It fails to explain the consequences of each action, any prerequisites or side effects, making it inadequate for an AI agent to safely use the tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides via the action enum and canister_id description. It does not compensate or enhance the parameter semantics.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Manage') and resource ('canister state'), and lists the specific actions (start, stop, delete). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like icp_get_canister_status or icp_upgrade_canister, though 'manage' is slightly generic.

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 implies usage based on the action list: if you need to start, stop, or delete a canister, this is the tool. However, it provides no explicit context on when to use it vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warnings about when certain actions are appropriate.

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