create_card_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: this is a preview operation (not a final creation), it requires user confirmation before proceeding, and it has a specific workflow constraint (must not be chained automatically). However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Preview a new card') followed by critical workflow instructions. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance without any wasted 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?

Given the tool's complexity (preview operation with workflow constraints), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly explains the purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral workflow. However, it doesn't describe what the preview output looks like or any error conditions, leaving some gaps in contextual understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (deckId, content, tags) with their descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('preview') and resource ('new card'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'apply_create_card' (which applies the creation) and 'create_deck' (which creates a different resource). It explicitly defines the action as a preview rather than a final creation.

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 explicit usage guidelines: it states when to use this tool (to preview a new card) and when not to (do NOT chain calls automatically), and specifies the required follow-up action (show preview to user and ask for confirmation before calling 'apply_create_card'). It clearly distinguishes this from its sibling 'apply_create_card'.

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