preview_delete_deck

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile of a dry-run tool is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that default and filtered decks are protected — but says nothing about error behavior or what happens if the deck id is protected, and does not describe the preview output.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The scope of what is previewed comes first, the exception clause second, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations already carry the safety profile for a one-parameter tool. The only real omission is a pointer to delete_deck as the follow-up action, which would make the tool fully self-locating in the workflow.

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 0% for the single parameter deck_id, so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'a normal deck' implies the id must reference a non-default, non-filtered deck, which is a meaningful constraint. It still never explicitly connects deck_id to that constraint or clarifies accepted values.

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?

Specific verb (preview) plus resource (a normal deck) and it defines the scope of what is covered — all subdecks and cards that removal would affect. It is implicitly distinguishable from the sibling delete_deck, but that sibling is never named, so the contrast is inferred rather than stated.

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?

The sentence 'Default and filtered decks are protected' gives a condition that constrains when this tool is applicable, but the description never states the workflow it belongs to (e.g. call this before delete_deck) or names delete_deck as the alternative. Usage is implied by the word 'preview' rather than spelled out.

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