Pass cards

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool requires the write switch, and cards can be referenced by id or exact name scoped to the source stack. It does not detail side effects such as ordering or failure behavior, but for a non-destructive card move this is reasonable.

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 sentences with no filler; the main operation is front-loaded and the naming constraint plus write-switch requirement are compact. 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 simple move operation with three required parameters, the definition covers purpose, card naming, and permission prerequisite. No output schema exists, but the expectations for a move tool are mostly satisfied; it could still mention what happens to stack order or what response is returned.

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 from/to/cardIds. The description adds value by clarifying that names are exact and resolved within the source stack, which prevents ambiguous matches. This goes slightly beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Pass chosen cards from one stack to another') with a concrete example ('from a hand to a pile'). It is arguably a near-tautology of the name, but the stack-to-stack scope and hand-to-pile example clarify the exact operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with deal/draw siblings, but the chosen-card semantics separate it from them.

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 gives a clear use case: moving selected cards between stacks, such as hand to pile, and states the write-switch prerequisite. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the operation is specific enough that the intended context is clear.

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