anki_create_deck

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

The annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds the idempotent behavior—'if it does not already exist'—which is a valuable behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. This explains the no-op case, enhancing transparency.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary information.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema plus annotations already provide comprehensive details on parameters and safety. The description covers the core function and idempotency, making it complete enough for its complexity. No major gaps exist.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (deck and response_format) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a deck, with a crucial qualifier 'if it does not already exist.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like anki_list_decks (list) and anki_add_note (add note), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 for deck creation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or context about when not to use it. The usage context is clear but not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools.

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