set_deck_config_id

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'assign' without explaining whether it overwrites existing assignments, whether it's reversible, or what side effects occur (e.g., scheduling changes).

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 a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information that could be added without increasing length, so it does not earn its place.

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 lack of annotations, schema descriptions, and output schema details, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral implications for a mutation 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. 'decks' could be deck IDs or names, and 'config_id' is not explained as an options group identifier. The input schema only provides types, which is insufficient.

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 action ('assign') and the objects involved ('decks to an existing options group'), and the parameter 'config_id' distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_deck_config' or 'save_deck_config'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'save_deck_config'), no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., the config ID must exist), and no exclusions for invalid inputs.

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