Marcar rango de cartas

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful behavior: it adjusts ownership quantities and reports non-existent numbers in 'errors'. However, it does not clarify whether 'set' overwrites existing quantities or whether other ownership data is affected.

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 compact and front-loads the main purpose. The examples earn their place and the text contains no significant padding, though it is slightly dense in its middle section.

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?

This is a destructive bulk operation with no output schema, and the description covers range parsing and error reporting. Still, the agent is left to infer exact mode and quantity meanings, which are central to invoking it correctly.

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 50%, and the description usefully expands the 'numbers' format with examples and hints at quantity adjustments ('set 33 a 0'). But the semantics of 'mode' and 'quantity' are not explicitly explained, despite needing more compensation at this coverage level.

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 states a specific action: 'Marca como poseídas (o ajusta) cartas de una expansión por números', with a clear resource and input style. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like ptcgp_set_card_quantity or ptcgp_bulk_update_collection, which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives a concrete intended use case ('volcado rápido manual') and demonstrates how to handle exclusions with example calls. It lacks explicit 'use X instead' guidance versus sibling tools, so it does not reach a 5.

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