Prepare Deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently reveals the side effect of setting Live's tempo when match_tempo=True and warns against mid-mix use. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors such as whether the deck starts playing, errors, or the state of the previous track.

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 dense sentence, front-loading the core action before the conditional side effect and usage warning. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with only three simple parameters and an output schema (per context signals), the description covers the main action, side effect, and usage timing. It could specify deck value formats or the relationship to crate_list, but the existing description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly in most cases.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does: file_path is implied to be a crate track path, deck is the target deck, and match_tempo is fully explained as enabling BPM-based tempo setting. This adds meaningful semantics beyond bare parameter names and types.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Load a crate track onto a deck', and additionally explains the optional tempo-matching behavior. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like load_to_deck and set_tempo by combining deck loading with tempo setting.

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?

It explicitly provides contextual guidance: 'use when starting a set, not mid-mix', which tells the agent when the tool is appropriate and when it is not. It does not name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to route usage.

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