Rename deck

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: which related entities move with the deck, which data is preserved, and — most importantly — that a bridge add-on is used if installed, otherwise the implementation falls back to moving cards into a new deck. That fallback changes observable behavior and is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry. It stops short of stating whether the fallback loses any metadata or what the preview returns.

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?

Dense and front-loaded — the retention guarantee and nesting rule come before the mechanics. Parenthetical compression is efficient rather than cryptic, though the final sentence running bridge-vs-fallback together takes a second read.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The two-step confirmation flow, the nesting convention, and the fallback path are all covered for what is a destructive mutation. A bit more on the preview step's output or failure modes would close the remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it largely does: it defines new_name's "A::B" nesting syntax, implies name identifies the deck to rename, and explains confirm_token's role in the two-step flow. The role of name when ambiguous deck paths exist is not clarified, so it is not fully compensated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Rename a deck") and immediately scopes it by listing what survives the operation — subdecks, cards, review history, option presets. The "A::B" nesting note further distinguishes it from create_deck/delete_deck siblings.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: the call is two-step, first preview plus token, then repeat with confirm_token. It does not explicitly name create_deck or delete_deck as alternatives, but the mutation is narrow enough that 'when to use' is implied by the name-plus-retention statement.

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