rename_deck

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: user authorization is required, default/filtered decks, cycles and collisions are rejected, empty parents remain, descendants keep IDs/settings/cards, and there is exactly one undo step. It even nuances the idempotentHint by stating identical retries are safe only while the desired state remains applied, which is the kind of condition annotations cannot express.

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?

Dense, front-loaded single paragraph where the core action comes first and constraints follow in descending importance. Some clauses are telegraphic ('a plain name promotes to top level', '::' without a full example), which costs a bit of readability, but there is essentially no filler.

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 mutation tool with an output schema already present, the description covers what an agent needs before calling: authorization, source of expected_name, name qualification syntax, rejection cases, effect on descendants, undo semantics and retry safety. Nothing material is left unstated.

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%, so the description must carry the load, and it largely does: expected_name is defined as the exact current value from list_decks (an optimistic-concurrency token), new_name is defined as fully qualified with '::' parent syntax, and deck_id is tied to 'stable ID'. deck_id's format/meaning is the thinnest part, hence not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'rename/reparent a normal deck by stable ID'. The 'normal deck' qualifier and the reparenting behavior separate it cleanly from siblings like create_deck, delete_deck, move_cards and update_note_fields, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisites: obtain expected_name from list_decks, supply a fully qualified new_name, and note that default/filtered decks are rejected. It also explains how to reparent ('::' selects an existing parent; a plain name promotes to top level). What it lacks is an explicit pointer to the alternative tool for the decks it rejects, but the in-scope guidance is clear.

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