anki_add_notes

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds critical behavioral guidance: field values are HTML and must be sent verbatim without escaping, and all notes share a single deck/type. This provides meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph delivers a crucial HTML warning plus a reference to conventions. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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?

Given full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description sufficiently covers batch behavior, shared deck/type constraints, and the HTML verbatim rule. It lacks explicit discussion of partial failure or error handling, but this is not critical for effective selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for all 6 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding by warning that field values are HTML and sent verbatim, which is not in the schema, and by pointing to anki_add_note for per-item conventions. This adds practical meaning to the 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 tool's function: 'Add several notes at once, sharing one deck and note type.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the emphasis on 'several notes at once' differentiates it from the sibling anki_add_note.

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 implies batch usage ('several notes at once') and directs the agent to anki_add_note for field/cloze conventions, which serves as a useful reference. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the single-note sibling or provide exclusion criteria.

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