add_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses bulk handling, duplicate detection, and what the return value contains (added/skipped counts and errors). However, it does not specify how duplicates are determined (e.g., by front field or entire note) or mention any environmental prerequisites like Anki being open.

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 compact and well-structured: a front-loaded summary sentence, followed by a short Args section and a Returns section. Every sentence conveys necessary information without fluff or padding.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of a nested schema and an output schema, the description covers the essential decision-making points: what the tool does, bulk behavior, duplicate handling, and return summary. Missing details like the exact duplicate detection rule and runtime prerequisites prevent a perfect score, but the description is still sufficiently complete for agent 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?

The top-level parameter 'notes' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by stating it is a list of notes, each with front, back, tags, deck, and model. This adds structural meaning beyond the raw schema, even though the nested schema already documents each field. It does not mention defaults, but those are visible in the nested properties.

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 begins with 'Create flashcards in Anki' — a specific action verb plus resource — and adds 'bulk creation with duplicate detection,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_notes, update_note, and delete_notes. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 makes it obvious this tool is for creating notes in bulk, and the context of sibling tools implies that searching, updating, and deleting are handled elsewhere. However, it does not explicitly state 'use this instead of X' or list any exclusions, so it lacks the strongest possible guidance.

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