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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: archived cards resume with their original review history, overdue cards become due immediately subject to daily limits, and both subdecks and parent decks cascade in the operation. That cascade and scheduling semantics are not derivable from the annotations or schema.

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-loads the usage trigger, then covers effects in two compact sentences with no filler. Minor slack in the trailing phrasing ('and so do the decks it sits in'), but nothing that warrants trimming substantively.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a one-parameter mutation the description covers the trigger, the scheduling consequence, and the scope of cascading effects, leaving no gap an agent would need filled before calling it.

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?

There is a single required 'deck' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including format guidance and a pointer to list_decks. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema already carries the full burden.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Puts it back into study') and describes the concrete state change: cards regain prior review history and resume scheduling. This is clearly distinguishable from the inverse sibling archive_deck without any schema inspection.

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 opening sentence gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when the user wants to study an archived deck again.' That is a clear when-to-use, but it names no alternative (e.g. archive_deck as the inverse) and states no when-not condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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