portainer_stack_deploy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behaviors: env variables are 'substituted into the compose file by Portainer' and endpoint_id 'uses default if omitted'. However, it does not mention permissions, whether the deployment is asynchronous, or if the stack is immediately started. This leaves some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in one sentence, followed by a clean, well-formatted args list. Every sentence and line adds value with no redundancy. The structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly parse the essential information.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the purpose, all parameters, and key behaviors. It could mention prerequisites like authentication or that the stack is created and started, but these are typical for a deploy operation and not critical. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to call 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully explain each parameter. It does so clearly: name ('Name of the new stack'), compose_content ('Docker Compose file content (YAML string)'), env ('Stack environment variables... e.g. {"DB_PASSWORD": "..."}'), and endpoint_id ('Target endpoint ID (uses default if omitted)'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Deploy a new stack from a docker-compose string.' This identifies the verb (deploy), resource (stack), and method (from a compose string), distinguishing it from sibling operations like update, delete, or start. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 the tool is for creating new stacks via 'Deploy a new stack', but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as portainer_stack_update for existing stacks. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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