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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered. The description adds useful behavior by stating that it returns allocation, proposed swaps, and an optional cart, and by describing backup/restore modes. It does not explain why the operation is non-idempotent or clarify that the optional cart is returned rather than purchased.

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?

The definition is three front-loaded sentences with little waste, moving from core purpose to outputs to invocation modes. It is appropriately sized, though the phrase 'optional cart' could use a brief clarification to avoid ambiguity about whether a purchase occurs.

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 9-parameter planning tool with no output schema, the description covers the high-level scope, outputs, and backup/restore modes. It is not complete enough for the parameter surface, especially the mode enum and per-deck configurations, and the return shape is only described in summary form.

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?

With 9 parameters and only 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by implying the core inputs: decks, shared owned inventory, budgetUsd, savedPlan backup, and planId restoration. It leaves important gaps around the mode enum, per-deck tool selection, bracket, locked/excluded cards, maxChanges, saveName, and qaTest.

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 states a specific verb and resource: plan upgrades for 2–3 Commander decks in priority order using a shared inventory and USD budget. It also names the returned artifacts, so the agent can distinguish this multi-deck planning tool from single-deck siblings, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 explains supported invocation paths: fresh inputs, a portable backup, or restoration by private plan ID. However, it does not explicitly say when to use plan_collection instead of sibling tools such as upgrade_precon, repair_deck, or reduce_deck_cost, leaving the agent to infer the multi-deck orchestration use case.

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