control_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the prerequisite relationship with control_ready and the deck file convention, but it does not say whether preloading replaces an existing deck, how failures behave, or what the tool returns. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 two short sentences with no wasted wording. The primary action and the ordering constraint are both front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 tool with no output schema and low complexity, the description covers the essential action, file convention, and required ordering. The main remaining ambiguity is that the single parameter is not required in the schema, while the description implies a deck name is needed.

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 100%, so the name parameter is already documented with an example. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that the deck name corresponds to a file under deck/*.ydk, which is more specific than the schema alone.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: preload a deck by name. It also clarifies that the name maps to a file under deck/*.ydk. It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from most siblings, but it does identify control_ready as the related follow-up tool.

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 states a clear sequencing rule: call this before control_ready so the deck update is valid. This tells the agent when to invoke it relative to a named sibling. It does not describe when not to use it or what happens if it is skipped, but the main usage context is clear.

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