update_deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that omitting the format parameter clears it, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as whether the update is destructive, reversible, or what the return value looks like. The API key requirement is stated but that is more of a prerequisite than a behavioral insight.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose. No superfluous information. Every word earns its place.

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 update tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers the main behaviors. It could be improved by mentioning return value or error conditions, but it is mostly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by clarifying that omitting 'format' clears it, which goes beyond the schema's description ('Omit for no format'). This additional semantic meaning justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 renames a deck or changes its format, using specific verbs ('rename', 'change') and resource ('deck'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_deck or delete_deck by focusing on updating an existing deck's properties.

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 usage when updating an existing deck's name or format, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_deck for new decks, or delete_deck for removal). No when-not or alternative recommendations are provided.

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