apply_stack

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: true. The description confirms installation action and highlights dry_run=True for preview without changes. Adds details about return values (per-server results, env_vars_needed). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with a clear introductory sentence, explanation of stacks, and a clean list of arguments. Each sentence adds value. Not overly verbose, though slightly longer than necessary for a tool with many parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, destructive action, output schema), the description covers all aspects: purpose, usage, parameters, dry run capability, and return structure. No missing information for an agent to use the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so description compensates. Clearly explains each parameter: stack (built-in name or .yaml path), clients and scope ('Same as configure_server'), project_path (required when scope='project'), and dry_run (preview without changes). Adds meaning 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?

Clearly states 'Install a group of MCP servers from a stack definition.' The verb 'install' and resource 'group of MCP servers' are specific. The concept of stacks (shareable profiles) distinguishes it from sibling tools like configure_server or list_installed.

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?

Explains that stacks are shareable profiles and mentions built-in stacks (data-science, web-dev, devops) and the option to use a .yaml file. Provides context for when to use each. However, does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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