deck_missing_to_buy_list

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states it is a 'real write to the buy-list' and returns the count of distinct cards added. No additional side effects are mentioned, but the basic behavior is transparent.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second confirms it's a write operation and lists the key requirement. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the prerequisite. It is complete for this simple tool.

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% and the description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides for deckId. The schema already explains how to obtain deckId (from list_decks or create_deck).

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 tool adds missing cards from a deck to the buy-list and returns the count. It distinguishes from siblings like add_buy_list by specifying the source (deck's missing cards) and the action (add to 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 mentions the requirement for IWMM_API_KEY, which is a critical usage constraint. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of 'missing cards' vs. direct addition implies appropriate use.

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