Destroy Stack (DESTRUCTIVE)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable specifics: triggers elicitation confirmation with a resource diff (R19), irreversibility ('Cannot be undone'), and the instruction to always confirm the stack name. It does not mention idempotency behavior (despite idempotentHint=true), but this is a minor omission.

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 well-structured with clear sections: the core action and consequences, then 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' blocks. Every sentence carries meaning—there is no filler. The key warning about irreversibility is front-loaded, and the guidance is organized for quick parsing.

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 action with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use, when not to use, safety confirmations, and the irreversibility. It also addresses common pitfalls (confusing with gateway restart, unsure stack). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% – both 'stackName' and 'yes' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds a reiteration that stackName is 'worth repeating back to the user' due to destructiveness, but this is largely a reinforcement of the schema's warning rather than new meaning. Given the baseline of 3 for high coverage, this 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 states a specific verb ('Destroy') and resource ('a clawops stack'), and explicitly notes it 'Removes ALL provisioned resources,' making the purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings by warning against using it for gateway stop, reinforcing that it is exclusively for destruction.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' conditions (user asks to destroy/tear down/delete/remove) and 'Do NOT use when' conditions (temporary gateway stop, uncertainty about stack), naming alternatives like clawops_gateway_restart and clawops_stacks_list. This is exemplary guidance for tool selection.

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