ygo_parse_deck

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does establish that the operation parses and validates (i.e. a non-mutating read) and that it should be trusted over model memory. It does not disclose what the validation checks, what happens on an invalid or partially-legal deck, or what the returned 'card data' looks like.

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 actionable directive and sized at three short sentences with no filler. It is slightly redundant, however: 'never transcribe the list by hand' and 'Do not answer from memory; call this tool first' make essentially the same anti-hallucination point.

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 zero-required-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is missing two things an agent needs: which of the three input forms to supply (and that at least one is needed), and any indication of the response shape after parsing. The routing instruction is complete, but the operational contract is not.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description usefully signals that filePath, ydkContent and ydkeUrl are three alternative input modes, but it never mentions the 'format' parameter, which is the one enum-bearing argument and materially changes validation via its banlist default.

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 — 'Parse the deck into card data and validate it' — and enumerates exactly which input forms it handles (.ydk path, raw .ydk text, ydke:// link). This distinguishes it from siblings like ygo_export_deck, ygo_compare_decks, ygo_check_legality and ygo_optimize_deck, which consume an already-parsed deck.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition ('when the user supplies a .ydk path, raw .ydk text or a ydke:// link') and positions itself as the entry point with 'USE THIS FIRST' and 'never transcribe the list by hand'. It stops short of naming any alternative or stating the negative case — e.g. what to do if the user pastes a plain-text decklist that is neither .ydk nor ydke://.

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