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

With annotations already covering the safety profile (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), the description adds substantive behavior: subdecks, cards and review history follow the move; intermediate decks are created if missing; operations are refused rather than merged, and moving a deck inside itself is blocked. These side effects and failure modes go well beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger, then path semantics with a concrete example, then refusal conditions. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the operation, path semantics, side effects, and failure modes, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters already document the '::' path format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the non-obvious detail that an intermediate target path is 'created if missing', which the schema does not state.

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 names a specific verb ('rename') and expands scope precisely to the three real operations: rename, nest under another, or pull to top level. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_deck, archive_deck, and delete_deck without requiring the schema to be opened.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user asks to rename a deck, nest it under another, or pull it out to the top level') and states refusal conditions. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative to use in edge cases, but the when-to-use context is unambiguous.

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