delete_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state that deletion is destructive/irreversible, whether it removes only the definition or also associated comments/types, what happens if the named variable does not exist, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing bloated or redundant.

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 mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters documented, the description is too thin. It should at minimum flag the destructive/irreversible nature and any coupled effects on dependent declarations.

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 50%; the items property itself is undocumented while nested fields (addr, name) and instance_id carry descriptions. The description's mention of 'offset' does not map cleanly to the schema's 'addr' field ('Function address'), which introduces ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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 (Delete) and resource (stack variables), plus the identification modes (name or offset), so the agent knows precisely what the tool targets. It does not differentiate itself from stack-manipulation siblings like declare_stack or stack_frame, which is the only gap.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternatives guidance. The agent must infer that this is the inverse of declare_stack and when deletion is appropriate versus re-declaration, with nothing stated explicitly.

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