ygo_migrate_temp_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose the blast radius of the mutation (registry, script, every saved .ydk). It does not say whether the rewrite is reversible, what happens if the tempId is unknown, or what errors occur when a .ydk path is missing, leaving real behavioral gaps for an unannotated write tool.

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 front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and follows with the scope of side effects; no filler, no repetition of the name.

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?

Adequate for a three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, but incomplete given zero annotations: the default behavior when ydkFilesToUpdate is omitted, collision handling with an existing official passcode, and any return/confirmation signal are all unaddressed.

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 required parameters are already documented with ranges. The description adds marginal meaning by revealing that saved .ydk files are rewritten, but it leaves the optional ydkFilesToUpdate ambiguous: 'every saved .ydk' suggests an all-files default that is not confirmed against the optional list parameter.

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 (Replace) and two specific resources (temporary ID, official Konami passcode), plus the exact artifacts affected: registry, script, and saved .ydk files. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like ygo_create_custom_card or ygo_ensure_script.

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?

Provides a clear triggering condition: use it once the official passcode has been announced, implying it is a post-announcement follow-up to custom card creation. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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