Add to Hand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add') but doesn't explain what happens—e.g., whether this is a mutation, if it requires permissions, if cards are duplicated or moved, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely modifies state.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words—it's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what's being added and where.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's ability to use it correctly in context with siblings like 'remove_from_hand'.

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?

The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the single parameter 'card_ids' as an array of UUIDs. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('cards to the user's hand'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_card' (which might create new cards) or 'remove_from_hand' (the inverse operation), so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for adding existing cards (as implied by 'card_ids') versus creating new ones, or mention prerequisites like cards needing to be in a deck first. There's no explicit context or exclusions provided.

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