ygo_generate_art_prompts

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

With no annotations supplied, the description has to carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose the core transformation (read from DOCX, write to a markdown file) and the structure of the output (per-card prompts plus Master Grid prompts). It does not say whether an existing ART_PROMPTS.md is overwritten or appended, whether the source DOCX must follow a specific format, or what happens on a malformed document.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and source, with the output details following. It is efficient with no filler, though the trailing clause packs per-card prompts and three grid variants into a dense phrase that could be split for readability.

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 three-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with full schema coverage, the definition covers the what but not the pipeline context — no mention of required upstream steps, downstream consumers, or write-side effects on the target file. An agent could call it correctly but would not know what it must do first or what it must do next.

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 this dimension is near baseline, but the description does add real meaning: it explains that gridLayout governs the "Master Grid prompts (2x2, 3x3, 4x4)" and it names the default output file (ART_PROMPTS.md), which the schema leaves unspecified for outputMdPath. That is a modest but genuine addition over the structured fields.

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 names a specific verb ("Extract") plus the resource ("every artwork description from the Master DOCX") and the concrete artifact produced ("ART_PROMPTS.md"). It is clear what the tool does, but it never names its closest siblings (ygo_generate_batch_art_prompt, ygo_slice_art_grid), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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: it is the step that turns a Master .docx into a prompt markdown file, presumably ahead of the slicing/batch tools. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. must the docx be validated first via ygo_read_and_validate_docx?), and no mention of when to prefer ygo_generate_batch_art_prompt instead.

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