create_deck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'This is a real write' indicating mutation, and mentions the API key requirement. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as idempotency, what happens if the name already exists, or rate limits.

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 three sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, nature of operation, and usage guidance with alternatives and auth requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly more verbose than needed but justified.

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 creation tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context including alternatives and auth. It does not cover return values or error conditions, but these are somewhat inferable for a simple create operation.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'Deck name' and 'Target format'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states 'Create a new empty deck' which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like add_deck_card and import_deck by naming them as 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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (to create an empty deck) and when to use alternatives (add_deck_card to fill, import_deck to create from text). Also mentions the required IWMM_API_KEY, providing a necessary precondition.

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