Deal cards

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

Annotations provide no hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key atomicity behavior (refusal before moving anything when insufficient cards) and a permission requirement (write switch), which is valuable. However, it does not describe whether the source stack is modified, what happens to the cards after dealing, or the return value, leaving some behavioral ambiguity. No contradiction with annotations.

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, each adding distinct value: the core action, the failure mode, and the permission prerequisite. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is zero redundancy or filler. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 5-parameter tool with multiple siblings, the description covers the essential action and one failure condition, but omits details like whether the source stack is depleted, the default behavior (already in schema for 'how' and 'number'), and the return value (no output schema). The schema covers parameters, but the description could be more complete regarding state changes and expected results for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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% with each parameter clearly described (e.g., 'how' enum, 'number' default, 'chatNotification' flag). The description adds no additional per-parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not compensate with extra context.

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 the specific verb 'deal' with a resource ('cards from one stack to each of several hands or piles') and a key constraint ('the same number of cards'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling operations like pass-cards or draw-cards. The added failure condition ('Refused before anything moves when too few cards are left') further clarifies the intended behavior.

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 provides useful context (dealing evenly to multiple stacks) and a prerequisite (write switch), but it does not explicitly compare to alternative card tools such as draw-cards or pass-cards, nor does it state when to prefer this over them. The context is clear but lacks explicit when-not guidance for a tool surrounded by many card-related siblings.

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