Create a review item for a learning node when none exists, enabling spaced repetition scheduling for learners.
Create a review item for a node if one does not exist yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes | ||
| item_ref | No | ||
| learner_id | Yes | ||
| request_id | No | ||
| session_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a key non-obvious behavior: it creates a review item only if one does not already exist, implying idempotent behavior. With no annotations, though, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or how existing schedules are affected.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the conditional behavior is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity sacrifices detail that would help with a 5-parameter tool.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal to fully support tool selection and invocation. It does not clarify what 'review item' means, what the optional parameters do, or what happens after creation.
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%, and the description only vaguely anchors 'node_id' by mentioning 'for a node'. The required learner_id and the optional item_ref, request_id, and session_id are not given any semantic explanation, leaving the agent to guess from parameter names.
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 ('Create') and resource ('review item for a node'), and the conditional 'if one does not exist yet' clarifies the intent. It is clear and not tautological, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like submit_review or get_due_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 implies when to use the tool: when a review item should be ensured for a node. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like submit_review, recalculate_review_schedule, or get_due_reviews.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.