ygo_export_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output formats, which is useful, but leaves the most consequential ambiguity unresolved: whether 'export' returns a string in the response or writes a file to disk, and whether anything is mutated. That is a real gap for a tool whose name implies a side effect.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb, resource, and output options all appear immediately with nothing redundant.

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 tool is simple (2 params, one required, no nesting) and there is no output schema, so the description should at least characterize what comes back. It names the artifacts but not their return shape (string vs file path) or whether multiple artifacts are returned when 'both' is selected, leaving a meaningful hole for an agent that must consume the result.

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% and the format enum is self-explanatory, so the baseline is 3. The description adds modest value by characterizing ydke as a 'canonical link' and naming the three values, but it adds nothing about the required 'deck' object 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Export a deck') and enumerates the three concrete output products (.ydk text, ydke:// link, or both), which lets an agent distinguish it from ygo_parse_deck and other deck tools. It stops short of naming a sibling outright, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for producing a shareable/portable deck representation. No when-to-use, when-not, prerequisites, or pointer to ygo_parse_deck for the inverse operation is given, and nothing explains how to choose between ydk, ydke, and both beyond the format names themselves.

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