import_deck

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

No annotations provided, but the description fully discloses behavior: exact match first, fuzzy fallback, returned structure with parsed and unresolved, and silent skipping of blank lines, comments, totals, and section headers. No side effects or hidden constraints are omitted.

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 purpose, then detail on matching behavior and output shape. Every sentence adds unique 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description covers input format, processing rules, and output structure comprehensively. It leaves no gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 single 'text' parameter has 0% schema coverage, but the description enriches it by specifying the expected format (`<count> <full_name>` per line) and what content is ignored. This provides essential guidance 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 clearly states the tool parses a Dreamborn/Pixelborn-style deck list into resolved card objects, specifying input format and output structure. It distinguishes itself from siblings like export_deck and resolve_card by focusing on bulk parsing with fuzzy matching.

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 does not explicitly advise when to use this tool versus alternatives like resolve_card or search_cards for single cards, nor does it mention prerequisites or forbidden inputs. Usage context is implied but not directly communicated.

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