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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context missing from those hints – the card is suppressed from both review and quizzes until the window elapses – but says nothing about reversibility, permission needs, or interaction with the existing SRS schedule.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action, the duration parameter with its range, and the resulting effect. Nothing needs trimming.

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 two-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the effect and the days range but omits the default value, how to undo a deferral, and how this differs from skip_card/mark_known. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify the days parameter's valid range (1-365) and meaning, but the schema's default of 3 is never mentioned and card_id is left entirely unexplained. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Postpone') and resource ('card') and explains the outcome: the card does not appear in review or quizzes until the deferral expires. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling skip_card, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 when the tool is appropriate (you want a card excluded from future reviews/quizzes for a period), but never states when to prefer it over skip_card, mark_known, or remove_word. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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