suggest_sideboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context: it analyzes weaknesses, provides per-card reasoning, and can be enhanced with external data. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and concisely explaining functionality. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given the annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior. It lacks explicit mention of output structure (no output schema), but the text implies a list of cards with reasoning, which is adequate for a recommendation 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 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as confirming the output is a 15-card sideboard, but does not elaborate on parameter details.

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 suggests a '15-card sideboard for a competitive deck,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'sideboard_guide' or 'sideboard_matrix' by focusing on generating a concrete sideboard with per-card reasoning.

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 implies usage contexts (analyzing deck weaknesses, works with or without data) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. No guidance on when not to use it or specific alternatives is provided.

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