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

The description does not disclose side effects such as whether review history is preserved, whether the card is fully replaced, or any impacts on scheduling or progress. The annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive, but the description itself adds no behavioral detail beyond the verb 'rewrite'.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no extraneous detail. It follows a clear verb-resource structure and is easy to parse.

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?

The description is too brief to convey important context such as required parameters (all three are required), potential error conditions, or behavior when the card does not exist. It also does not clarify that both front and back must be provided; the schema indicates this but the description leaves it implicit.

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 mentions 'front and back text' which maps to the front and back parameters, but it does not explain the card_id parameter or that it is required for identifying the target card. The schema has no per-field descriptions, so the description provides minimal additional semantic value.

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 (rewrite) and the resource (a card's front and back text). It is specific enough to distinguish from creating or deleting cards, though it omits explicit mention of the card_id identifier, which is implied by the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., create_cards, delete_card). There is no mention of prerequisites, caution, or context that would help an agent decide to invoke this over alternatives.

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