deck_missing_to_buy_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that this is a real write operation, notes the return value (count of distinct cards added), and specifies a required API key. This adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Three concise sentences cover the action, return, and key notes (real write, auth requirement). No unnecessary words.

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 purpose, return, side effects, and auth. It does not address error scenarios or idempotency, but these are not critical for a straightforward add 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%, baseline 3. The description adds guidance on where to obtain the deckId ('Get from list_decks or create_deck') and clarifies the context of 'missing cards', enhancing parameter understanding.

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 specifies the action ('Add'), the resource ('deck's missing cards'), and the target ('their buy-list'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_buy_list' (which adds arbitrary cards) by focusing on the shortfall from inventory.

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 implies the use case (syncing a deck's missing cards to the buy-list) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to alternatives. However, the context is clear enough.

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