create-cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses GM-only permission requirement, the optional folder creation, and the structure of cards (face text/img vs plain). This is good behavioral coverage for a creation tool.

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 sentences with key information front-loaded. First sentence covers primary action and scope; second adds card structure; third provides use cases and permission. No wasted words.

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?

Given 5 parameters, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers creation behavior, card structure, and use cases. It lacks error/edge-case details but is adequate for typical use.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining `text` as HTML shown on the card, `img` as Data-relative path, `description` as GM/meta note, and `folderName` behavior. This context is beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it creates a Cards stack (deck, hand, or pile) with optional initial cards, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list-cards, delete-cards, and import-cards by focusing on creation for custom themed decks.

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 advises use for custom themed decks and notes GM-only, providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the sibling set is large and the purpose is well-defined.

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