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

The annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Not destructive and safe to repeat' largely restates those. But it adds genuinely new context with 'Rebuilt and generated decks go live at their share_url as soon as they are finished,' which explains auto-publish behavior the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence is readable at a glance. The 'Not destructive and safe to repeat' sentence is partially redundant with the annotations, a minor inefficiency rather than clutter.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: the action, the trigger condition, and the auto-publish nuance. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the sole parameter's id source ('from get_rebuild_status, list_decks or get_deck') is already documented in the schema. The description adds no argument syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Turn a deck's shareable link on.' This is clearly distinguishable from create_deck, rebuild_deck, and the read tools among its siblings. An agent knows exactly which state change this performs.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: 'use this when the user made one private and wants the link back,' which is concrete and actionable. It does not, however, name an alternative or state when not to use it (e.g., versus create_deck or the auto-publish behavior of rebuild_deck), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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