docker_stack_action

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that destructive actions exist and what down vs down_volumes removes, but the final sentence is truncated ('are destructive and also '), leaving the confirm requirement for the destructive actions unstated, and it says nothing about host targeting or permissions.

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 structure is good: a one-line purpose followed by the action catalogue and then the confirm/destructive caveats. But the text ends mid-sentence, which is waste in the opposite direction – the definition is incomplete rather than merely tight.

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 values need not be explained, and the action catalogue covers the core of the call. Still missing: which destructive actions require confirm (sentence truncated), what host means for stack selection, and the result of a build or recreate beyond the shell-equivalent note.

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% and action has no enum, so the description is the only place the valid action values and their semantics are defined – substantial value beyond the schema. However, the stack and host parameters are never explained, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names the verb and resource ('Run a Compose action on one stack') and then enumerates the exact operations, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like docker_stack_status, docker_stack_write, or docker_stack_file. The only weakness is the generic framing verb 'run' before the enumeration does the real work.

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?

It defines each allowed action value and its effect (up vs pull vs update vs recreate), which is essentially the when-to-use guidance for this tool. It also flags which actions require confirm=true and which are destructive. It does not route the agent to any alternative sibling when a non-stack operation is needed.

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