Put an archived deck back into study. Its cards come back with the review history they had, so whatever came due while it was archived is due now, within the daily limits. Its subdecks come back with it, and so do the decks it sits in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deck | Yes | Deck name. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| saved | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: review history is preserved, due reviews become due 'within the daily limits,' subdecks are restored, and parent decks are also brought back. This goes well beyond what readOnlyHint and destructiveHint provide and helps the agent understand side effects accurately.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds a relevant behavioral detail. It is concise without being terse or wasting words.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the operation, side effects on reviews, subdecks, parent decks, and daily limits. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 schema already documents the only parameter 'deck' with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter-level detail, but the schema is sufficient, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Put an archived deck back into study.' It clearly communicates the action and is distinguishable from its sibling archive_deck, which performs the opposite operation.
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 implies the tool should be used when a user wants to restore an archived deck to active study, and it explains the behavioral consequences. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like archive_deck as the reverse operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.