propose_create_deck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this makes no changes, and the 'dry run' wording is consistent with that. The description adds a real constraint beyond annotations — scope 'only inside the writable decks' — which is genuinely useful context, but it omits what the dry run produces (a plan) and how it feeds the apply/reject flow.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than tightness.

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 propose/dry-run tool embedded in a plan-apply workflow, the description omits the most important context: that it yields a plan consumed by apply_plan/reject_plan, and any constraints on the name. With a 1-param schema at 0% coverage and no output schema, the description should carry more of this burden.

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% and the description does not mention the single 'name' parameter at all, so it adds nothing beyond identifying the action. Even though 'name' is fairly self-evident for deck creation, the description makes no attempt to clarify it.

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?

States a specific action (dry run for creating a deck) with a clear verb+resource, and the 'propose_' naming plus the parenthetical scope make it distinguishable from write siblings like apply_plan. It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative it pairs with, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'dry run' implies a non-committing preview, but the description never states when to use this versus apply_plan, nor that a resulting plan must be applied or rejected afterward. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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