deck_audit_bundle

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: concurrent execution of six sections, per-section ok/error status, simulation forced to v3, and the role of the rulings section. It does not contradict annotations (the idempotentHint with random seed is a minor nuance but not a contradiction). The added detail goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 description is longer than minimal but well-structured: a single-sentence summary followed by detailed behavioral notes. It front-loads the purpose and then elaborates. While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value, and there is no fluff. Efficiency could be slightly improved, but it remains effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, multiple sections), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the concurrent execution, error handling, simulation version, parameter usage, and even guides the agent on how to use the rulings output. No critical gaps are present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds clarifications for some parameters: decklist specifies 'commander EXCLUDED — a 99-card Commander library', and commander_colors is marked 'REQUIRED so the simulation color screen can never be skipped by omission'. These additions help the agent understand constraints beyond the schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Full mechanical audit battery in ONE call' and lists specific sections (validation, analysis, combos, bracket, commander rulings, v3 simulation), clearly stating the tool's comprehensive purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by bundling multiple functionalities that are available as separate tools (e.g., deck_validate, spellbook_find_combos, spellbook_estimate_bracket, commander_overview).

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 implies this tool is for a complete audit instead of calling multiple tools individually, as indicated by 'in ONE call'. It provides guidance on error handling ('A failed section NEVER fails the whole bundle') but does not explicitly list alternative tools or scenarios where they should be used instead. Thus, while clear, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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