remove_deck_card

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms it removes a card and row entirely. However, it does not detail side effects, reversibility, or what happens to the deck structure after removal, which would be helpful beyond the annotation.

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 a single sentence plus an auth note, which is concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action but omits some behavioral context.

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?

With no output schema and 3 required parameters, the description provides the essential action but lacks details about return values, irreversibility, or conditions. It is minimally adequate but not fully informative for 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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not add significant new meaning. It reinforces that isSideboard indicates which board, but this is already in the schema.

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 action ('Remove') and the resource ('a card + board row from a deck'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_deck_card' and 'set_deck_card_quantity' by specifying that it removes both the card and the entire row, which is a unique operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., setting quantity to zero via 'set_deck_card_quantity'). The description only mentions an API key requirement, which is not usage guidance.

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