review_card

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a user-initiated recording of a review result, but does not disclose side effects such as updating the card's review schedule, overwriting previous results, or required permissions.

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 a single concise sentence that starts with the core action and includes necessary parameter semantics. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple 2-parameter tool the description covers the main call intent and parameter semantics, but it does not mention side effects such as updating the card's next review time or whether an existing review record is overwritten.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by defining the three possible values of result (remember/fuzzy/forgot) and stating that the assessment is user self-reported. The id parameter is already described in the schema as the card id.

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 action ('记录一次复习结果') with a clear object and context. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like save_card or claim_card, but the purpose is unambiguous from the tool name and description.

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 to use this tool—after a user completes a review and self-assesses their recall. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions such as 'use this instead of save_card when logging a review outcome.'

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