make_restart_deck

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that default mode 'inline' produces one self-contained deck and that the result should be validated and run. However, it does not disclose whether output_deck writes a file, what non-inline modes do, or any side effects or prerequisites.

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 three sentences with no filler. The main purpose is stated first, followed by the core restart relationship, mode behavior, and suggested next steps. Every sentence adds actionable 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 tool with an output schema and a clear workflow, the description covers the essential context: how to find valid steps, what the default mode produces, and what to do with the result. It omits details about output_deck and skiprest, but the core invocation path 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the three required parameters by showing the relationship 'restarts base_deck from restart_case:report_step' and explains the default mode. It does not explain skiprest or output_deck beyond their schema defaults, leaving some parameters underdocumented.

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 a specific action: generate a restart (history -> prediction) deck via OPM's rst_deck. It identifies the key inputs (base_deck, restart_case, report_step) and references related sibling tools, making its purpose distinct from validation or execution tools.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use this tool: to create a restart deck for predictions, with restart_info as the source for available steps, and validate/run_flow as follow-up steps. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative such as clone_deck, but the intended workflow is clear.

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