komodo_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 for what is a destructive mutation. It does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to dependent resources, or any permission requirements. Only 'Deletion confirmation' hints at the response.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and compact overall. The Args/Returns scaffolding is somewhat boilerplate but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details are exempt, but for a destructive tool with zero annotations the description omits the destructive/permanence and safety context an agent needs. It is under-specified for the operation's risk level.

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, and it only adds 'Stack ID' for the single id parameter. That clarifies the identifier's meaning beyond the bare 'id: string' schema but provides no format, validation, or naming details.

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 and resource ('Delete a stack'), which distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like komodo_delete_deployment and komodo_delete_build. No explicit sibling routing is given, but the resource name alone is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus komodo_update_stack or other mutations, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The description only restates the action with no usage context.

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