create_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (Deck ID) and the naming convention for sub-decks, but does not mention permissions, idempotency, failure conditions, or other side effects beyond 'create'.

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 tight and well-structured with an Args/Returns format, including an inline example. Every sentence adds value without 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 one-parameter creation tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action, naming syntax, and return value. No additional context is needed 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?

Although the input schema only defines 'name' as a string, the description adds critical semantics: the :: delimiter for nested hierarchy and an example ('AWS::IAM'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and enriches the parameter understanding.

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 'Create a new deck' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_decks, export_deck, and import_deck by focusing on the creation action.

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 implies usage by explaining the :: syntax for nested decks and returns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is obvious for creation but lacks explicit guidance.

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