anki-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it creates a new card, supports HTML/markdown formatting, handles duplicates (returns None if duplicate), and specifies default values. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions, but covers essential operational traits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and 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?

Given the complexity (mutation tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (covering return values), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, behavior, and output adequately, with no significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'front' as question side, 'back' as answer side), format support (HTML/markdown), defaults, and optionality. This comprehensively documents all 4 parameters.

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 specific action ('Add a new flashcard') and resource ('to Anki'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_flashcards' (bulk operation) and 'create_deck' (different resource). It uses precise verbs and identifies the exact function.

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 usage by specifying the tool's purpose, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'add_flashcards' for bulk operations or 'create_deck' for deck management. No exclusions or clear contextual boundaries are provided.

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