precon_upgrade

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining that the tool pairs each upgrade with a specific cut and explains synergy improvement, which clarifies the read-only nature of suggestions.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and add a key detail about pairing upgrades with cuts. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, output format (paired upgrades with cuts and synergy), and aligns with annotations. Given schema completeness and no output schema needed, it provides sufficient context for agent selection.

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 100% (baseline 3). The description adds context beyond individual parameters by stating that each upgrade is paired with a cut and synergy explanation, enhancing understanding of how parameters relate.

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 analyzes and upgrades a Commander precon, identifies weakest cards, and suggests replacements with paired cuts. It distinguishes from siblings like 'evaluate_upgrade' and 'suggest_cuts' by specifying the full precon upgrade with cut-synergy explanations.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for upgrading a precon, but lacks when-not instructions or mentions of sibling tools like 'budget_upgrade' or 'suggest_cuts'.

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