add_to_reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that items start at SRS level 0 and become reviewable immediately, and notes the allowed reviewable_type values. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects, or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, and includes essential behavioral info without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, basic behavior, and parameter nuance. It does not explain return values or error handling, but these are less critical given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying the reviewable_type enum values (e.g., not 'Vocabulary') and explaining that deck_id is optional with default behavior. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'items to your Bunpro SRS reviews', specifying that items start at SRS level 0 and become reviewable immediately. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remove_from_reviews' and 'get_reviews'.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to add items to reviews) and provides a clarifying note on reviewable_type values ('Vocab' or 'GrammarPoint'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool list helps.

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