Shuffle a card stack

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the 'write switch' requirement, which is helpful context beyond the annotation. It doesn't detail the effect on the stack's order or any random seed behavior, but the annotation coverage 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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the additional 'write switch' note is important. 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?

With output schema absent and simple parameters, the description covers the essentials. It lacks details like the exact behavior of the shuffle or any side effects, but for a straightforward operation with full schema coverage, it's minimally adequate. More could be said about the stack's order randomization or the nature of the write switch.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (stackId and chatNotification) are fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it shuffles a card stack via Foundry, with a specific resource type. While it could differentiate from sibling card-stack tools like deal-cards or draw-cards, the verb 'shuffle' is unambiguous enough for the main purpose.

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?

It implies usage for shuffling a stack but gives no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The requirement of the write switch is mentioned, but no explicit comparison to other card tools or conditions for selection.

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