update_deck

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

No annotations provided; description carries full burden. It discloses that omitting format clears it (side effect) and requires IWMM_API_KEY (auth). It does not mention idempotency, reversibility, or concurrency, but covers key behaviors for a simple 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides relevant 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?

For a simple update tool with 3 parameters, full schema, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, key behavioral nuance (clearing format), and auth requirement. Could mention that name is required, but overall adequate.

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% (baseline 3). Description adds value by stating 'Omitting format clears it,' which clarifies the behavior beyond the enum description. It also reiterates the purpose of name for renaming.

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?

Description says 'Rename a deck or change its format.' This clearly states the verb (rename/change) and resource (deck), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_deck, delete_deck, get_deck, etc.

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?

Description provides usage hints like 'Omitting format clears it' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives among sibling update tools. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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