update_deck

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a behavioral trait: omitting format clears it. It also mentions the API key requirement. It does not detail side effects or error handling, but the behavior is straightforward for a rename/format update.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose ('Rename a deck or change its format'), with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds information.

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?

While the description covers the main behavior, it lacks mention of return value or success indicators. With no output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing what the tool returns (e.g., updated deck object). However, for a simple update, this is acceptable.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds value by clarifying that omitting format clears it, which is more explicit than the schema's 'Omit for no format.'

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 ('Rename' or 'change') and the resource ('a deck'), with specific actions (rename or change format). It differentiates from sibling tools like create_deck, delete_deck, and get_deck by focusing on updating an existing deck's name and format.

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 provides a key guideline: 'Omitting format clears it,' and notes the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_deck or delete_deck, though the purpose is clear.

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