deck_missing_to_buy_list

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

The description explicitly states 'This is a real write to the buy-list', which alerts the agent that it is a mutation. It also notes the API key requirement. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., duplicates, reversibility) or behavior when no cards are missing. With no annotations, it carries the full burden and is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and return value, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the function, return value (count), and auth requirement. It lacks explicit handling of edge cases (e.g., no missing cards) but is largely complete.

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 100% and the description adds value by explaining where to get the deckId ('Get from list_decks or create_deck.'). This provides practical guidance beyond the schema's type and constraints.

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 the verb 'Add', the resource 'deck's missing cards to their buy-list', and the outcome 'Returns the count of distinct cards added'. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like add_buy_list (generic addition) and add_deck_card (adds to deck, not buy-list).

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 description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_buy_list or when not to use it. The only additional note is the API key requirement, which is not usage guidance. Given the large set of sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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