ygo_generate_proxy_pdf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: fixed physical dimensions, page layout, art fallback to a text proxy when images are missing, and the "no downloads" implication of style=text, plus a legal-use restriction. It does not say what the tool returns (file path vs. PDF bytes), where the file lands by default, or what happens for unresolvable card names.

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?

Front-loaded with the produced artifact and its physical spec, then inputs, then the usage caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; nothing is padding despite the density.

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 an 8-parameter generator with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers layout, sizing, art source behaviour, input modes and print instructions well. The remaining gap is return behaviour — whether the agent gets a path, a link, or confirmation the PDF was written.

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 explains gapMm, style, sections, cropMarks and outputPath. The description restates the accepted input formats and image/text art modes but adds little syntax or edge-case meaning beyond what the property descriptions provide.

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 concrete verb and artifact: a print-ready proxy sheet with cards at real OCG/TCG size (59 x 86 mm), 9 per A4 page, crop marks and a 50 mm scale bar. The output format alone separates it from ygo_generate_tournament_decklist_pdf and ygo_render_deck_image, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: it accepts a deck (ydke://, .ydk, text list) and/or an explicit card list, is scoped to "personal playtesting only," and tells the agent to instruct the user to print at Actual size / 100%. It never names a sibling tool or says when to prefer another PDF/render option, so routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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