import_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value (new deck id and unresolved lines) and the authorization requirement (IWMM_API_KEY). It does not mention side effects or safety (e.g., idempotency), but the disclosed information is sufficient for basic understanding.

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, covering the core purpose, input format, return value, and a requirement. Every part is necessary and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. It mentions the API key requirement. It could be improved by noting error behavior (e.g., duplicate name) but overall is sufficiently complete for basic usage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no significant meaning beyond the schema: it repeats the text format but does not elaborate on the 'name' or 'format' parameters. The example is helpful but not a semantic addition.

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's purpose: creating a deck from pasted decklist text. It provides an example format ('4 Lightning Bolt') and specifies the return value (new deck id and unresolved lines). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_deck or import_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 input format and API key requirement, which gives context for use. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_deck or import_inventory_cards, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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