Setup Decks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait ('persist the mapping'), indicating a state-changing operation, but it does not state whether existing mappings are overwritten, whether the mapping takes effect immediately, or any prerequisites such as Live being running.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Map decks A and B') before the target and persistence detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter setup tool.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool, and an output schema exists to cover returns, but there are gaps: no usage context, no mention of side effects on existing mappings, and no clarification of track index bounds. The description is enough for a basic call but not fully self-contained for an agent.

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%, but the description connects 'decks A and B' to 'track indices', which maps naturally to deck_a_track and deck_b_track. It adds the 'Session View' context, yet it does not explain valid index ranges, defaults, or 0-based semantics beyond what the property names already imply.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Map') and resource ('decks A and B') with a clear target ('Session View track indices') and adds persistence. It distinguishes setup_decks from siblings like deck_status or load_to_deck by naming the pair-mapping action.

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 setup_decks versus alternatives. It does not mention whether this is a one-time initialization, when it should be called, or why it should be preferred over sibling tools such as prepare_deck or load_to_deck.

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