delete_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It clearly states the non-destructive nature ('assets are NOT deleted'), the immediate user-visible effect ('show as individual items again'), and the server-side side effect ('removes the grouping on the server'). It also mentions the return type. Minor omissions like reversibility or permission requirements prevent a 5.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the core action, the second clarifies the most important non-destructive caveat, the third describes the side effect, and the Args/Returns lines are minimal and useful. No redundant wording.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the key behavioral nuance, the parameter role, and the return value. It does not discuss error cases or authorization, but these are not essential for this low-complexity operation. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance about when to choose this over similar stack or deletion tools.

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?

The schema only provides the parameter name and type with no description, so the schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates with 'stack_id: The stack to dissolve,' clarifying the role of the single parameter. It does not add details like ID format or lookup behavior, but for a single simple parameter this is sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Dissolve a stack.' It also resolves the ambiguity of the tool name by explicitly stating that assets are NOT deleted, which distinguishes it from deleting assets or deleting other entities. This clearly differentiates delete_stack from siblings like delete_assets and delete_album.

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 makes the operation's effect obvious but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by context (for dissolving a stack) but does not name related stack operations or exclude cases like deleting a whole stack's assets, which a cautious agent might confuse.

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