import_deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool imports and returns a confirmation, but does not disclose whether importing overwrites an existing deck, how conflicts are handled, or what happens if the file is missing. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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 concise and well-structured. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 one-parameter, simple import tool, the description covers purpose, parameter, and return value adequately. The main gap is the lack of information about conflict/overwrite behavior, which is minor given the low complexity, but it would be expected for a restorable operation.

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?

The schema provides only a string type for 'filename' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by specifying it must be the 'Name of the .apkg file in the configured archive directory,' clarifying both the required extension and the directory context. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Import/restore a .apkg file from the archive directory.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_deck, create_deck, and list_decks. The .apkg format and archive directory add precise context.

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 by 'Import/restore' but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It doesn't mention, for example, that exporting should be used to create an archive file, or that listing decks might be more appropriate for inspection.

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