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

Annotations already declare the write/safe-mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value with 'All or nothing' — explicit atomic transaction semantics that no annotation conveys. Remaining gaps (undo, returned values) are modest.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the action verb and bounds, and it appends the sequencing guidance last. The sentence fragment 'Prompts only.' is terse to the point of ambiguity and doesn't clearly earn its place.

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 output schema, the description covers atomicity and the next workflow step, but says nothing about what is returned (created ids/count) or how ownership failures surface. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, but the schema itself already encodes the 1-100 array bounds, required prompt/answer pair, and uuid deckId format. The description only adds the ownership constraint ('one owned deck'), and its cryptic 'Prompts only' clause adds no usable parameter guidance.

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 with scope bounds: 'Add 1 to 100 prompt/answer pairs to one owned deck.' The 1-100 range implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling addCard, and 'one owned deck' pins the target.

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 gives a concrete follow-up step ('After this, re-run previewDeadlinePlan with that deckId') but never states when to prefer this over addCard or any condition that would exclude its use. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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