create_deck

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

The description adds that user authorization is required and that an existing deck is returned if present, which usefully clarifies the idempotent behavior already hinted at by annotations. It does not go further into permissions, failure modes, or side effects, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted text. Authorization and idempotent-return details are included efficiently.

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 one-parameter creation tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential action, authorization prerequisite, and idempotent return behavior. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying what 'normal deck' means or naming constraints, but no critical information is missing.

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?

With only one required string parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description minimally identifies that the deck is created 'by name.' It does not explain naming constraints or uniqueness rules, but the parameter is simple enough that this is not a severe gap.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a normal deck by name.' It is distinguishable from siblings like rename_deck or list_decks by the create action, though it does not explicitly compare itself to those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Create a normal deck,' and the note that an existing deck is returned if already present gives useful idempotent-call context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over checking list_decks first or when not to use it.

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