import-cards

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes that cards have no premium-book compendium and that the tool is GM-only, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions beyond GM, or whether the operation is destructive or read-only.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the action and key details. Every sentence adds value: purpose, example, alternative, and GM restriction. No filler or redundancy.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and constraints. It could briefly mention that the deck is imported as a stack, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds examples for 'preset' ('pokerDark'/'pokerLight') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. The optional parameters 'name' and 'folderName' are not elaborated upon.

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 the tool imports a Foundry PRESET deck with examples ('pokerDark'/'pokerLight'). It distinguishes itself from 'create-cards' for themed D&D decks, providing a clear verb+resource scope.

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 says to use this tool for ready-made decks and directs to 'create-cards' for themed D&D decks. It implies GM-only usage, which serves as a usage constraint, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it beyond the alternative.

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