add_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two meaningful constraints: sequencing after Cursor Run and a prohibition on parallel execution. However, it skips other useful mutation traits like duplicate handling, idempotency, or what happens if the deck name does not exist.

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?

A single sentence that front-leads with the action and includes the most critical caveat. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a simple add-card tool with a fully documented schema and output schema, the description covers the essential usage conditions. The only notable ambiguity is the phrase 'after Cursor Run,' but the constraint is explicit enough for a context-aware agent.

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% and every parameter is described in the schema, so the baseline is appropriate. The description does not explain any parameter further, but the schema already provides enough information.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a card to Anki'), making it immediately clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'edit_card', 'get_card', and 'list_decks' by the action it performs on a card.

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 provides explicit operational context: the tool should be used 'after Cursor Run' and must never be called in parallel with other tools. It does not name a specific alternative, but the action is unique enough among the siblings that no exclusion is really needed.

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