Create function stack variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden yet says nothing about mutation semantics: whether declarations overwrite existing stack variables, whether they fail on conflict, or what state the database must be in. It does not even disclose that this writes to the IDB.

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?

One short sentence with no wasted clauses, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient density.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, an undocumented required array parameter, and sibling tools that overlap in purpose, the description is far too thin; the output schema offsets some of this, but input-side and behavioral gaps remain.

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 coverage is 50%: instance_id is documented in the schema, but the required 'items' parameter has an empty description and nested field meanings (addr/offset formats) are only terse labels. The description adds nothing about batching, item shape, or offset syntax to compensate.

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 verb+resource (create stack variables) is identifiable, but 'typed stack declarations' is jargon that only marginally clarifies the operation, and nothing distinguishes it from nearby siblings like stack_frame, declare_type, or add/delete_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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus stack_frame, declare_type, type_apply_batch, or delete_stack, and no prerequisites such as needing an open database or defined function.

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