import_deck

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the deck is stored, the return value (deck id and unmatched card names), and that scraping is unreliable. It doesn't mention side effects like duplicate handling or failure behavior, but it's reasonably transparent for an import operation.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by param details and return value. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 an import tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what, how, special cases, and expected output. It omits details on `name` and `format`, and doesn't discuss error scenarios, but it's adequate for a well-scoped 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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains most parameters: `text` (Arena/MTGO list), `url` (Archidekt/Moxfield), `best_of` (1 or 3), `meta_share` (0..1), `tier`, and `allow_scrape`. However, `name` and `format` are not described, leaving a small 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 clearly states the tool imports a decklist and stores it for buildability analysis, distinguishing it from siblings like list_decks and search_cards. The verb 'import' and resource 'decklist' are specific and the purpose is 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?

It provides clear usage context by specifying that exactly one of `text` or `url` must be provided, and explains when `allow_scrape` is appropriate (MTGGoldfish, though unreliable). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool.

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