Sync status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds genuinely new context by disclosing what is compared (local folder vs. sync marker vs. web) and that the local half works offline while the web half does not. That offline/online split is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations can't convey. It stops short of saying what happens when the folder has never been synced or how stale a `.kadal-deck/` marker renders the web comparison.

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 trigger sentence is front-loaded, and the rest is a compact enumeration of the returned signals with no filler. The second sentence is a long-list run-on that would scan faster as a structured breakdown, but each item carries information.

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?

It is complete on the behavioral side (what is compared, what comes back, offline scope) and the output schema removes the need to describe the return shape. However, for a tool whose whole purpose is targeted at a specific deck, leaving two of three parameters entirely undefined in both schema and description is a real gap for an agent deciding how to scope the call.

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 description coverage is only 33%: `dir` is documented in the schema but `slug` and `workspace` are bare strings with no description anywhere. The description adds nothing about any parameter — not what `slug` selects, how `workspace` scopes the web comparison, or that all three are optional with the server's folder as default.

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 names the resource (a published deck folder, its .kadal-deck/ sync state, and the web) and the operation (compare them and report differences). The enumerated outputs — newer web versions, local changes per slide, conflicts, an in-progress web draft, and `next` — make the tool's identity concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-siblings such as deck_conflicts or deck_check, which costs it a point.

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?

"Before editing a published deck, call this" is an explicit, actionable trigger condition, and the `next` field routes the agent onward (e.g. deck_pull). What's missing is any statement of when this tool is unnecessary or when a sibling like deck_conflicts should be used instead.

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