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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds real context beyond them: the deck is created empty, its ID is returned, and there is a hard quota of 25 decks per account. It does not mention auth/permission requirements beyond 'signed-in user'.

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 return value, then follow-up steps and limits. No sentence is filler.

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 details need not be repeated, yet the description still notes the ID is returned. For a single-parameter create tool with a quota and clear follow-up routing, nothing an agent needs to call 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 there is only one parameter ('name'), which the schema already documents as trimmed and non-unique. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 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+resource ('Create an empty stream deck') and even clarifies what a deck is ('a dashboard of collection columns') plus its scope ('for the signed-in user'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming create_collection for columns and update_stream_deck for renames.

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 clear routing guidance: add columns via create_collection, rename via update_stream_deck, and states the 25-deck account limit. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., that existing decks should be fetched with list_stream_decks), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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