answer_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the card is rescheduled according to SM-2 after answering, which is an important side-effect. It does not detail additional mutating behavior or prerequisites, but the disclosed rescheduling is a useful behavioral transparency beyond the raw action.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second immediately gives the rating semantics and the scheduling consequence. Every clause contributes useful 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the core action, rating definition, and behavioral after-effect. There is no output schema, so returning details are not explained, but the essential calling context and purpose are sufficiently specified.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds semantic value by explaining each rating (forgot, hard, good, easy) in terms of level of recall, which helps the agent map user feedback to the right enum value more accurately than the schema alone.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('answer to a review card'), and it defines what submitting means via the rating scale. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_review_cards or create_card, which do not perform the answer-submission action.

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 clearly implies the tool is used when the agent has completed a review card and needs to record a self-assessment rating. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the context of answering a card is strong enough to make the intended use clear.

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