create_stack

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden; it is unusually transparent, disclosing a server-side side effect, the primary-asset rule ('The first id becomes the primary'), a minimum of two assets, and that assets are kept rather than deleted. It does not address reversibility or conflict behavior, but the core state-changing traits are clearly stated.

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 text is compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, and organized with Args/Returns sections. Each sentence adds information—purpose, effect, parameter constraint, return shape—with no filler.

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 one-parameter create operation, the description covers what, when, why, how parameters behave, side effects, and the return shape. The output schema exists and the description also spells out the returned fields, leaving little for an agent to guess.

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 the schema only declares asset_ids as a string array. The description compensates fully: it imposes the 'at least two' constraint, explains that order matters, and defines the first element as the cover/primary—making the single parameter fully meaningful.

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 the specific action 'Group near-identical assets into one stack' and differentiates it from a hard delete by describing it as 'a gentler cleanup than deleting.' The 'Side effect: creates the stack on the server' confirms a create operation distinct from stack list/get/update/delete siblings.

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 gives clear usage context: use when you have near-identical assets (burst, retries) and want to reduce clutter while keeping all shots. It contrasts with deleting, implying this is the non-destructive alternative, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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