swu_upload_deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at mutating state ('stateful session') without explaining whether it overwrites an existing deck, creates a session if missing, or applies the shuffle/draw defaults. These side effects are critical for a stateful 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 with no wordiness, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It needs additional sentences to cover essential behavioral context for a five-parameter tool, so it is not appropriately sized.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description is too thin for a stateful mutation tool among many related session tools. It does not explain how the upload integrates with the session lifecycle or what the default behaviors mean for subsequent game actions. Given the tool's complexity, this is insufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. It only mentions 'decklist' generically and does not explain the format of the decklist string, the meaning of session_id, format_name, shuffle, or draw_opening_hand. The agent gains no additional meaning beyond type/default info.

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 ('upload') and clearly identifies the resource (Star Wars Unlimited decklist) and destination (named stateful session). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate, generate, or export by focusing on the upload-into-session action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as swu_validate_deck or swu_export_deck. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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