swu_generate_deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses several key behaviors: default on-aspect restriction, off-aspect cost implications, ownership quantity capping, and curve steering via target_avg_cost. It stops short of stating that the result is not guaranteed legal or final, but 'first-pass' implies this.

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 at four sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and then provides targeted parameter guidance without wasted words or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with 11 params and an output schema, it covers the most impactful behaviors and defaults, making it usable for its primary purpose. It does not explain every parameter or explicitly link to the output schema, but it is sufficiently complete given the complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for only_owned, allow_off_aspect, and target_avg_cost with concrete examples, but it leaves several parameters (budget, base_name, leader_names, primary_aspects, target_matchups, meta_context) unaddressed, leaving clear gaps.

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 uses a specific verb 'generate' with a clear resource 'deck' and a defined scope 'around a theme', immediately distinguishing it from siblings like validate, analyze, or suggest deck tools.

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 establishes a clear use case ('first-pass brew') and gives actionable guidance on when to set only_owned, allow_off_aspect, and target_avg_cost. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions when compared to other deck tools.

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