add_to_stack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: the server's tools become available across clients and appear with a specific naming pattern after restart. This is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention failure modes or idempotency.

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 — two sentences, immediately stating the action and its outcome. Every clause adds value: the purpose, the effect, and the restart requirement. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description is complete enough for a simple add operation, covering the main outcome and a critical post-condition (restart). It does not address edge cases like duplicate adds or prerequisites (e.g., server must already be installed), but these are not essential given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter-level detail. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema effectively documents the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('an MCP server to your Launcher stack'), clearly stating the tool's function. It also differentiates from siblings like install_server by focusing on making tools available through Launcher, which is distinct from installing the server itself.

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 indicates the purpose — to make server tools available in every AI client — and notes that tools appear as `<slug>__<tool>` after restart, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like install_server, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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