Reset a card stack

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly=false and destructive=true, so the description adds value beyond annotations by clarifying that cards are returned rather than destroyed and that the write switch permission is required. This gives an agent useful operational context without contradicting the annotation hints.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The action and permission requirement are front-loaded, and the second clause explains the differing behaviors for decks versus hands/piles without 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 simple two-parameter schema and clear annotations, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation: it names what happens to cards, distinguishes stack types, and notes the required permission. A short note on the return shape would be a minor enhancement, especially since no output schema exists, but it is not essential for correct invocation.

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 fully documents stackId and chatNotification. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states; the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 action ('Reset a stack through Foundry') and specifies the exact behavior for decks versus hands/piles: a deck takes back every card it gave out, while a hand or pile returns cards to their decks. This distinguishes reset-card-stack from sibling tools like shuffle-card-stack, deal-cards, and delete-card-stack.

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 implies when to use the tool by explaining what a reset does, and it mentions the 'write switch' prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as delete-card-stack for permanently removing a stack, leaving usage guidance to inference rather than direct routing.

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