deckPresets.update

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description usefully adds that all dependent cards are touched, that rescheduleFsrs gates only optional rescheduling while mandatory memory/step updates still run, and that undo is single. That said, it omits what 'coordinated backend request' failure leaves behind and whether partial updates roll back, and it frames a bulk card-touching write while destructiveHint is false without reconciling that tension.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by requirement, mutation semantics, and a compact meta block (method/scope/effect/completion/undo) and error list. The dense 'Preserve current target deck, collection settings, overrides and custom scheduler' sentence is the weakest line and slightly opaque, but overall there is little waste.

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 long-running mutation with a large nested settings object and no output schema, the description covers default waiting behavior, timeout semantics, the operation-handle alternative, undo scope, and an enumerated error set. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret failure modes.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter meaning the schema cannot express: at least one of name/settings must be present, untouched fields must be carried forward, and rescheduleFsrs only governs optional rescheduling while mandatory native updates still fire. It also flags waitForCompletion/timeoutSeconds as server-side options whose timeout does not cancel work.

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 ('Update a preset and all dependent cards') plus the coordinated backend request, which is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as deckPresets_assign or deckPresets_create, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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?

'Require name or settings' and the note that only supplied settings keys are updated gives clear in-call guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no routing statement distinguishing this from deckPresets_assign (attaching a preset to decks) or deckPresets_create.

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