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

Annotations declare a non-readonly, non-idempotent, destructive mutation, and the description earns credit by explaining the actual behavior: the previous schedule is replaced and recall quality directly drives how far out the next review moves. It also addresses non-idempotency by stating each call records one review. It does not clarify whether prior review history is lost when the schedule is replaced, which is the main destructive question left open.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and behavior before the rubric, and every sentence is load-bearing. The grade enumeration and the JSON example are somewhat redundant with each other and with the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description still covers the scheduling consequence, the grading scale, the once-per-review constraint, and the sibling dependency, which is everything an agent needs to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, but the description adds real value by spelling out the full 0–5 grade rubric with concrete anchors (0 no memory, 3 right with serious difficulty, 5 perfect) and by giving a literal call example. Only the quote_id sourcing is a restatement of the schema.

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 states a specific verb-and-resource pair: it records recall quality for one saved quote/passage on a 0–5 scale and reschedules the next review. It also names the sibling it pairs with (list_quotes_due_for_review), so an agent can place it in the workflow without inspecting 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?

It gives a clear trigger condition: use when the reader has answered a review question from list_quotes_due_for_review and has stated or made clear how well they remembered it. It also warns to grade an item once per review. There is no explicit when-not case beyond that, 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.