Create a card deck

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's burden is lower. It adds useful behavioral details: cards preserve order when read back, and empty hand or pile is permitted. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the ordering guarantee is placed at the end without excess detail. 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 creation tool with fully documented parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral nuance (ordering, empty stacks). It does not describe return values, but without an output schema that is not a significant 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about card structure and ordering, but it does not add meaning for name, type, folderPath, backImg, or description beyond what the schema already documents.

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 a specific action ('Create a card deck') and resource, and immediately clarifies that it can also produce an empty hand or pile. This distinguishes it from sibling stack tools like get-card-stack or delete-card-stack without requiring the agent to inspect each schema.

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 phrase 'or an empty hand or pile to deal into' explains when this tool is appropriate for creating non-deck stack types. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for reading, shuffling, or deleting stacks, but the context signals are clear enough for an agent to select this tool.

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