Export deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful output traits (fully inlined, self-contained, shareable), but says nothing about whether it overwrites an existing file, whether the deck must exist, or what permissions are needed for a write to disk.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and the artifact, devoting its parenthetical to the only detail that matters for the output. No filler or 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it covers the nature of the produced file reasonably well but omits the default output location (left entirely to the schema), overwrite behavior, and any note that deck_id must reference an existing deck. Adequate but with noticeable gaps for a filesystem-writing 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 coverage is only 50%: 'path' is documented in the schema (including the default ~/.ferry/exports/<id>.html), but the required 'deck_id' has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 concrete verb (write) plus resource (the deck) and the artifact produced: one self-contained HTML file with viewer, fonts, and code inlined. That distinguishes it in practice from read-oriented siblings like get_deck or open_deck, though it never names an alternative to make the contrast explicit.

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 trailing phrase 'to share or attach to a PR' implies the scenario for exporting rather than viewing, which is useful implicit context. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus open_deck/get_deck, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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