Draw cards

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it refuses before any cards move when too few remain, performs a post-move lookup, and requires the write switch. Since the annotations only provide false hints, these disclosures carry important safety and operational information.

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 compact and front-loaded: action first, then failure behavior, verification step, and permission requirement. The sentence 'Every card is looked up afterwards' is somewhat vague, but the overall size and structure are appropriate with no 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?

The description covers the core operation, a critical failure condition, and an auth prerequisite, which supports invocation. However, with no output schema, it does not clarify what the caller should expect afterward, and it does not position this tool among the similar card-related siblings.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds a little context around from/to being stacks and connects the refusal behavior to card count, but it does not substantially extend or clarify any specific parameter beyond what the schema already says.

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 a specific action ('Draw cards') and resource ('from one stack ... into another'), with concrete typical examples: a deck into a hand or pile. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like deal-cards or pass-cards, so it stops short of full sibling-level clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deal-cards, pass-cards, or other card-stack operations. The 'usually a deck' and 'usually a hand or pile' phrasing implies a typical case but does not state exclusions, alternatives, or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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