ygo_optimize_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: it grades specific ratios and proposes upgrades under the current banlist and meta, and its output should be the starting point for replacements. It does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, what permissions or network dependencies exist, or what the response contains.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the usage condition and the core action, and it is generally efficient. The two closing sentences about not answering from memory are somewhat repetitive, though they reinforce an important constraint.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema analysis tool, the description covers purpose and usage but leaves gaps around return values, read-only behavior, and prerequisites. It is adequate to select the tool, but not fully complete for calling it with confidence about the output.

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 the schema already documents the deck and format parameters, including the format enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 uses specific verbs (upgrade, fix, grade) and a specific resource (an existing deck), and it clarifies that the tool grades staple/hand-trap/board-breaker ratios and proposes upgrades. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that build new decks, compare decks, or check legality.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when the user asks to upgrade, fix, or grade an existing deck, and it warns not to answer from memory. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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