finalize_deck

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

Annotations declare a safe, idempotent, non-destructive write, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing exactly what gets written (data/decks/<name>.<format>.ydk plus a .json with ydke:// URL, decklist, points/ban breakdown, as-of date), the failure mode (nothing written, problems returned), and the overwrite/history behavior. This is rich behavioral context that matches the declared safety profile rather than contradicting it.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the critical precondition before the output details. The parenthetical aside is slightly dense but each sentence earns its place; no filler.

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 no-output-schema tool the description usefully describes the returned artifacts and the ydk path handed to follow-ups. However, with 7 parameters at 0% coverage, an agent still lacks any guidance on how to supply decklist, ydk_text/ydk_path, notes, or point_cap, leaving a real gap for a complex mutation tool.

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 7 parameters, so the description carries the full documentation burden, yet it names no parameters. The path template "<name>.<format>" only faintly implies the name and format arguments, and nothing explains notes, decklist, ydk_path, ydk_text, or point_cap.

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 verb+resource ("Save a finished deck") and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling validate_deck by framing saving as conditional on validation. An agent can tell this is the terminal persistence step versus validation or lookup siblings without opening the schema.

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 an explicit precondition (only save if validate_deck says it is legal) and names the alternative flow (follow-up questions pass the returned ydk path to validate_deck or find_links). It lacks an explicit "do not use this when..." against a competing save tool, but the gating condition covers most of the routing decision.

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