Share a deck publicly

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

Annotations convey only the generic write/openWorld/no-destructive profile; the description supplies the operationally critical facts an agent cannot infer — that the default call is a non-publishing dry run, that publishing makes a legal declaration on the user's behalf (quoted verbatim), that AnkiWeb limits are validated during the preview, and that re-sharing is refused. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the publish action and its audience, then the confirm flow, then the declaration, then edge cases. The full legal declaration quote is long but is precisely the text the agent must surface, so it earns its space; the prose is otherwise tight with no filler.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with an output schema present, the description covers everything the agent needs to decide, sequence, and gate the call: auth requirement, dry-run/preview semantics, user-confirmation gate, re-share refusal, and the declaration the user is accepting.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning to `confirm` (its absence yields a preview rather than a publish) and instructs that `deck` values come from list_my_decks. It adds little for tags/title/supportUrl/description beyond the schema, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Publish one of the signed-in user's decks to AnkiWeb's public shared-deck catalogue') and names the scope (under their account, publicly downloadable). This is clearly distinct from siblings like download_shared_deck or search_shared_decks, which move decks in the other direction.

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 spells out the two-phase invocation contract explicitly: calling without `confirm` returns a preview that must be shown to the user, and `confirm: true` is only called after explicit user go-ahead. It also states a when-not condition (already-shared decks are refused) and a precondition (needs an AnkiWeb session).

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