create_card

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

The description discloses an important behavioral consequence: 'The card will be scheduled for review immediately.' Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. However, it omits other behavioral context such as permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the card afterwards. It earns a 3 for adding meaningful side-effect information without full disclosure.

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 only two sentences: one clean action statement and one contextual/behavioral note. Every word earns its place, and the most critical 'when to use' trigger is front-loaded. No irrelevant information is included.

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 schema is fully documented, so parameter coverage is strong. The description provides a clear usage trigger and a notable behavioral side effect. A small gap remains because no output schema exists and the description does not explain the response or success indication, but this is a simple operation and the available context is mostly adequate.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters, including descriptions for question, answer, tags, and source_slug. The tool description does not add meaning beyond 'Create a new review card', so the schema is doing the heavy lifting. Baseline 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Create a new review card manually.' The phrase 'when you and the user have just discussed a fact worth remembering long-term' adds useful context and gives an example trigger phrase. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like create_note or quick_capture, so it loses a point for sibling differentiation.

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 gives a clear condition for use: 'Use this when you and the user have just discussed a fact worth remembering long-term, e.g. "add this to my reviews".' This provides strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, so it is not a full 5.

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