lattice_update_stack_compose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool rewrites the stored definition without deploying, which is key for understanding its non-destructive nature in terms of deployment. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects on the stack, or whether the rewrite is immediate and persistent.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the action and immediately clarifies a critical nuance (no deployment), making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple update tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage and next steps. It could mention that the compose YAML must be valid or that the tool does not validate it, but this is not critical for basic agent usage.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (id and compose_yaml). The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Replace' and resource 'stack's compose YAML', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It differentiates from siblings like lattice_deploy_stack by explicitly stating it does not deploy, and from lattice_update_stack by focusing on compose YAML specifically.

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 clearly states that the tool does not deploy and advises calling lattice_deploy_stack afterwards, providing explicit usage guidance. However, it does not directly contrast with other update tools like lattice_sync_stack_compose or lattice_update_stack, leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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