Ungild Card

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the observable consequences: the card will no longer appear in golden card filters and will lose priority highlighting. Since readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false already signal a non-read-only but non-destructive operation, the description usefully clarifies the exact state change. It does not cover edge cases like applying it to an already-ungilded card, but it provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the effects are stated immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple, focused status-removal operation, the description covers the purpose and the observable effects. It does not specify what the response looks like, but no output schema exists and the state change is described well enough for an agent to understand the outcome. Minor missing details, such as reversibility, prevent a perfect score.

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 both parameters are already well-documented with examples and guidance. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail. This matches the baseline of 3 for cases where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove golden status from a card.' It clearly identifies the operation and differentiates it from sibling tools like fizzy_gild_card and other card mutations. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clearly implies the use case: reversing or removing a card's golden status. However, it does not explicitly name fizzy_gild_card as the inverse operation or state conditions for when not to use it. The intended context is clear, but exclusions and alternatives are left implicit.

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