Add cards to the collection

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that cards are appended or incremented, that ambiguous matches lead to no changes and candidate listing, and that comments in the file are preserved. It does not cover error handling or output format, but it covers several important behaviors.

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 compact and front-loaded, with just two sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides essential input format and ambiguity handling. 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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the input format, ambiguous lookup behavior, and comment preservation. It does not describe the success return value, but with no output schema and low complexity, this is a minor omission. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Although the schema covers the only parameter 100%, the description adds crucial context: the TCG Live format, one line per card, and the behavior when a name lacks a set code. This goes beyond the schema's simple example and enriches the parameter's meaning.

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's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Append or increment cards in the collection file.' It is distinct from sibling tools like collection_remove and collection_list, and the input format is given.

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 makes it clear this tool is for adding cards to the collection, and it provides input format and special handling for ambiguous lookups. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is obvious given the sibling tools.

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