evaluate_upgrade

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

Description adds value beyond annotations by detailing return values (card details, price, synergy, combos) and noting graceful degradation if optional sources are unavailable. This informs the agent about potential missing data. However, it does not elaborate on what 'degrades gracefully' entails technically.

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 sentences with no redundancy. Purpose, output, and edge case (graceful degradation) are front-loaded and efficiently communicated.

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 input schema is complete and no output schema exists, the description adequately explains the return values. It covers card details, price, synergy, combos, and graceful degradation. However, it omits details on how synergy is computed or how the evaluation is structured.

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 does not add additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain the difference between 'detailed' and 'concise' response formats.

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 clearly states the tool assesses whether a card is worth adding to a specific commander deck, which is a distinct verb+resource pair. It differentiates from siblings like edhrec_card_synergy (which only provides synergy scores) by encompassing price, details, and combos. However, it could more explicitly contrast with similar evaluation tools.

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 usage when evaluating a card for a commander deck but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like spellbook_find_combos or edhrec_commander_staples. No exclusions or contextual cues are provided.

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