Provision stack

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds specific behavioral details: it installs missing packages, enables services, and rejects invalid plan IDs. This clarifies side effects and error handling, which the annotations do not cover. It could also mention that it mutates host state, but that is implied by 'installs' and 'enables'.

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 filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second provides essential details and a rejection condition. Every word contributes value.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (present but not shown), the description fully covers the purpose, required context (a valid plan), side effects, and error behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies that plan_id must be a previously returned plan ID and that stale/invented IDs are rejected. This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare schema definition, though it doesn't specify format or validation 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?

The description states a specific verb ('apply'), a specific resource ('previously returned stack plan'), and concrete actions (installs APT packages, enables PostgreSQL and Valkey). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like plan_stack (which creates plans) and provision_app_resources (which targets app resources).

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 context: it applies a plan that was previously returned, so the agent knows it must be called after plan_stack. It also notes it rejects stale or invented plan IDs, guiding the agent to only use valid IDs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like provision_app_resources, but the resource type ('stack plan') is enough to differentiate.

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