Create a deck

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the empty/nonexistent-folder precondition (the main failure mode) and the fact that dependencies get installed, which explains the open-world/network behavior. It does not cover failure handling or partial-creation behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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 tight sentences: the first states what is created and that dependencies are installed, the second front-loads the precondition. Every clause carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the key prerequisite plus workflow hand-off are covered. It leaves minor gaps on failure semantics and the default package manager, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds value by establishing that `dir` is a shared identifier reused across all other tools, and that dependency installation is part of the same call (linking to `install`). It says nothing about `title` or `packageManager`, which the schema handles.

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 gives a specific verb ('Scaffold a new Kadal Deck folder') plus concrete artifacts produced (deck.mdx, deck.config.ts, src/, AGENTS.md) and notes the dependency install. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like deck_build or deck_export, which operate on an existing deck.

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 states a hard precondition ('folder must not exist or be empty') and a follow-on rule ('afterwards, pass the same `dir` to the other tools'), which tells the agent this is the entry point of a workflow. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases beyond the folder precondition.

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