remove_deck_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is an 'entire' removal and requires an API key, but it does not indicate whether the removal is irreversible, what happens on failure, or the response format. More behavioral context (e.g., destructive nature, side effects) would be expected.

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 concise sentences that front-load the action. Every phrase earns its place. It could include more detail without becoming verbose, but the brevity is a strength for quick understanding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., deck ownership), consequences (permanence), error conditions, and expected response. Given the complexity and absence of output schema, the description should provide more context to guide an agent.

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 each parameter is well-documented in the schema (e.g., deckId source, cardId UUID format, isSideboard explanation). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 the verb 'Remove' and the specific resource 'a card + board row from a deck entirely'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_deck_card (which adds cards) and set_deck_card_quantity (which modifies quantity without removal). The mention of 'entirely' clarifies the scope of removal.

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 tool is used to remove a card row from a deck, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like setting quantity to zero with set_deck_card_quantity, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. The guidance is minimal.

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