create_deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new deck' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured—every word earns its place by stating the essential function.

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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'deck' is, how it relates to other entities (like cards), what happens after creation, or error conditions. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this leaves too many contextual gaps for effective agent use.

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%, with both parameters ('name' and 'parentId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'Create a new deck' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('deck'), but doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_card_preview' or explain what a 'deck' represents in this system. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks differentiation from alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'create_card_preview', 'find_deck_by_name', and 'list_decks', there's no indication of when creation is appropriate versus searching or listing. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparative context are mentioned.

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