portainer_stack_delete

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose the destructive nature of the operation, but it only says 'Delete a stack.' There is no mention of irreversibility, potential side effects on associated resources, permission requirements, or failure conditions. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact argument list. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids any filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

Although an output schema exists (signal indicates it), the description does not mention what the tool returns, nor does it provide any context about the deletion process, such as whether it stops running containers first or requires the stack to be stopped. Without annotations, this is insufficient for a destructive operation; an agent might not know if it can safely call it or what to expect.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter in plain language: 'stack_id: The ID of the stack to delete' and 'endpoint_id: Endpoint ID (derived from the stack itself if omitted).' The note about endpoint_id being derived is helpful, but it does not cover error handling or value constraints. Given the schema already provides titles, this adds moderate value.

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 clearly states the action: 'Delete a stack.' It identifies the resource and the operation, and the verb 'delete' distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy, update, start, stop, inspect, etc. An agent can unambiguously know this is the tool for removing a stack.

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 implies usage by the name and the verb, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., stack must exist, or that it is irreversible). It relies on the tool name for differentiation, which is adequate but not explicitly stated.

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