create_deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that existing decks are left untouched, which is useful. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if a deck with the same name already exists) or any side effects beyond creation.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds key nesting and safety details. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple creation tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential aspects: creation, nesting, and non-modification. Output schema likely handles return values. Minor gap: no mention of first-time setup or potential errors.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'name' with no description. The description explains that '::' can be used for nesting, adding meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well.

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 'Create a new deck' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also explains the nesting feature with '::', distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_deck or list_decks.

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?

Provides specific guidance on creating nested decks using '::' and clarifies that existing decks are left untouched. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives for modifying existing decks.

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