Fijar cantidad de una carta

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

Annotations already signal destructive/read-write behavior, so the description need not repeat that. It adds valuable semantics: mode='set' writes an exact value, mode='add' supports negative deltas, and the result never drops below 0. This goes beyond the schema and annotations but stops short of describing side effects beyond the clamp.

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?

Two compact sentences cover purpose, mode semantics, and sibling routing with zero filler. The most essential behavioral detail (mode behavior) is placed first, and alternative-tool guidance is appended efficiently.

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 simple mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and alternative routing. It does not mention return behavior, but given the low complexity and supporting annotations, the remaining gap is minor.

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 67%, and the description compensates for the undocumented 'mode' parameter by explaining 'set' vs 'add' and the default. It also clarifies quantity semantics for 'add' mode (negative deltas, never below 0), which is not fully captured in the schema description.

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 a concrete verb ('Registra cuántas copias... posee el usuario') tied to a specific resource, and it explains the two modes of operation. It also names sibling tools for different use cases, which helps an agent distinguish this tool from ptcgp_bulk_update_collection and ptcgp_mark_range.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to prefer alternatives: use ptcgp_bulk_update_collection for multiple cards and ptcgp_mark_range for ranges of consecutive numbers. This makes the 'when to use vs. alternatives' decision explicit.

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