precon_upgrade

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that the tool pairs each upgrade with a specific cut and explains synergy improvement. This provides some behavioral context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose details about output format, limitations, or data sources.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the primary action and the second adding important detail about pairing cuts with synergy explanation. Every sentence is useful, and the information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the core functionality but lacks details about edge cases, error conditions, or the nature of the output. Given the complexity of suggesting upgrades with cuts, the description is adequate but not thorough. The absence of an output schema is not compensated by additional description of return values.

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 all parameters are already described in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema. It mentions 'identifying weakest cards' and 'suggesting replacements' but does not elaborate on how budget, num_upgrades, or response_format affect behavior.

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 it analyzes a Commander precon and suggests upgrades with specific cuts and synergy explanations. The verb 'upgrade' and resource 'precon' are specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like evaluate_upgrade, budget_upgrade, or suggest_cuts, which have similar purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., needing the decklist and commander) or indicate situations where other tools might be more appropriate. The description leaves the agent without clear usage boundaries.

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