change_deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action (move) without mentioning side effects, permissions, reversibility, or behavior of the output_file parameter. It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, what happens if the target deck doesn't exist, or how multiple selection methods interact. This is a significant gap given the mutation nature of the tool.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary action and selection methods. It avoids redundancy and gets to the point quickly, though it could expand slightly on parameter interactions without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter exclusivity, the role of output_file, error handling, or prerequisites. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks critical context needed for correct invocation, such as whether card_ids and note_ids can be used together or if a target deck must exist.

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 description explains the meaning of most selection parameters (card_ids, note_ids, query, input_file) and mentions target_deck_name, but it omits output_file entirely. It also does not clarify whether the selection methods are mutually exclusive or can be combined, nor does it specify the format of the input_file. With 0% schema description coverage, this leaves important semantics undefined.

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 clear action: 'Move cards to a target deck', listing specific selection methods (card IDs, note IDs, search query, input file). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like suspend_cards or export_deck, which do different operations. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 that this is the tool for moving cards between decks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites. There are no direct sibling tools for moving decks, so it implicitly stands alone, but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose it over others.

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