manage_stack

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It does not mention that the 'remove' action is destructive, that 'logs' may stream or follow, or any side effects or access requirements. The description is generic and uninformative about real behavior.

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, but its brevity comes at the cost of specificity. It is a single generic sentence that does not front-load important details like the available actions. It earns its place for being short, but fails to provide substance in that space.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, multiple action types, one destructive action), the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the trade-offs between actions, when to use each, or the effects on the stack. Even with an output schema present, the description fails to provide enough context for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 100%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters (action, stack_name, tail_lines, follow_logs). The description adds no parameter information, but the schema carries the burden, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Perform operations on existing stacks' is vague; 'operations' does not specify the concrete actions like start, stop, restart, remove, or logs. It does distinguish from sibling tools like create_stack and list_stacks by focusing on existing stacks, but lacks the specificity expected for a clear purpose.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description gives no indication of when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as create_stack or list_stacks, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied context comes from the phrase 'existing stacks', which is not enough.

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