prepare_card

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description adds genuinely new behavior beyond that: the write is a staging operation that does NOT reach the active library, and edits are revision-gated. That is the key contract an agent needs. It stops short of saying where staged data lives or what a caller receives back, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the most important constraint. No filler, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a tool whose main parameter is a large nested TechCard with evidence constraints, the description says nothing about what a well-formed or complete card looks like, leaving a real gap relative to the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters, and the description names none of them. "Updates require revision" loosely gestures at base_revision, but task_id, card_id, and the entire TechCard payload (name, problem, use_when, avoid_when, integration_cost, evidence) are left for the agent to reverse-engineer from the schema titles alone.

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?

"Stage researched, sourced data" gives a specific verb (stage) and a resource (sourced data), and the follow-up clarifies the boundary: the result is not persisted to the active library. That distinguishes it meaningfully from the confirm/save family in the sibling list, though the description never uses the word "card" and so is slightly vague about what exactly is being staged.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: staging-not-saving suggests this runs before a confirmation step, and "updates require revision" hints at the edit path. But no sibling is named and no explicit when/when-not condition is given, so the agent must infer that confirm_card is the follow-up.

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