request_create_flash_card

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses SCA requirement, default polling, fallback, and two-step flow. Could add permissions or response type but is otherwise strong.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states purpose, second covers SCA behavior and fallback. No redundant phrases.

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 no output schema and the complexity of SCA handling, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the flow and failure mode. Could clarify return shape or error cases, but the reference to 'structured pending response' suffices.

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%, so the schema itself documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (only mentions wait default and sca_session_token role) beyond what the schema already provides, meriting the baseline score.

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 starts with a clear verb-resource pair ('Create a flash card request') and distinguishes this from siblings like request_create_virtual_card (different card type) and card_list, card_discard, etc.

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?

It explicitly covers SCA handling, default polling behavior, fallback to pending response, and references sca_session_show and sca_session_token for the two-step flow. Lacks explicit 'when not to use', but the context is clear.

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