Write an approved Anki plan to the collection and read it back to confirm; if pending, request user approval before applying.
Write an approved plan to Anki and read it back to confirm. If the plan is still pending, the server asks the user to approve it (the model cannot approve on the user's behalf).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plan_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive, non-readOnly, idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations cannot: the server will prompt the user for approval when the plan is pending, the model cannot self-approve, and a read-back confirmation occurs after the write.
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, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the approval caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description covers the read-back confirmation and the pending-approval branch, which is the main failure mode. It omits error cases for an unknown or already-applied plan_id, a minor gap for a single-parameter tool.
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 0%, so the schema contributes no meaning for plan_id; the description implies it identifies a previously proposed plan but adds no format, source, or valid-value detail (e.g., where to obtain a plan_id). Baseline 3 given one undocumented parameter the description only partially compensates for.
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?
States a specific verb (write) and resource (an approved plan to Anki) plus a follow-up verification step, which clearly separates it from the propose_* siblings that create plans. It stops short of naming the sibling tools explicitly, so differentiation relies on the word 'approved'.
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?
Clearly frames the condition under which it applies (an already-approved plan) and explains what happens if the plan is still pending, which tells the agent not to expect a silent success. It never explicitly points to list_plans or reject_plan as alternatives, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.