Delete stack

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful nuance: only the grouping is removed server-side and assets survive as individual items. It does not say whether the dissolution is reversible or whether any permission is required, so it stops short of full coverage.

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 critical caveat (assets are not deleted) is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the trailing Args/Returns blocks are short and conventional rather than padded.

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 little explanation, and the mutation's scope is clearly bounded. Only irreversibility and permission requirements are left unstated.

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 only parameter is documented merely as "The stack to dissolve", which restates the parameter name. With a single required string id, the semantics are nearly self-evident, so the cost is small, but the description adds essentially nothing beyond the schema.

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?

"Dissolve a stack" states a specific verb and resource, and the note that assets remain as individual items immediately distinguishes this from delete_assets in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is implied by the contrast with destructive asset deletion, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or pointer to siblings such as update_stack or delete_assets for the case where the user actually wants the photos gone.

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