stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does provide useful behavioral context: the stack is placed on the top socket and respects the stack limit. However, it does not say what happens when the limit is reached, whether a negative count is allowed, or what occurs if the key is invalid.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with the placement detail and stack-limit behavior in a parenthetical. Every clause earns its place and there is no 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the happy path but leaves important gaps: default count behavior, limit-violation behavior, and error semantics. It is adequate for basic invocation but not fully complete for robust agent decision-making.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'piece key' identifies the target and 'count more copies' suggests count is the number of copies to add. But it does not clarify the default when 'count' is omitted, nor whether negative values are meaningful, leaving ambiguity despite the schema's numeric bounds.

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 action ('Stack'), the target resource ('piece key'), and the manner ('using its top socket'). It is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from generic placement tools like 'place' or 'move', though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'place', 'remove', or 'set_pose'. The description implies the intended use case (stacking onto an existing piece) but provides no explicit exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool over a sibling.

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