propose_add_cloze_notes

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the 'dry run' framing, so no contradiction. The description adds real behavior beyond annotations: cloze syntax is validated for the entire batch, implying all-or-nothing failure semantics, though it doesn't say what the caller receives on success or failure or that a plan must be applied.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the dry-run constraint is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the workflow it represents, but every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter batch tool with no output schema and no annotation coverage of the propose/apply workflow, the description leaves the return value (a plan handle?) and the 'deck' argument unaddressed. The batch-validation note is the main gap-filler, but the plan lifecycle the name implies is not explained.

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 description coverage is 0% at the top level and the description names neither required parameter. The 'deck' parameter's format (name vs ID) is undocumented anywhere, and 'notes' is only described obliquely via 'one or many' and batch validation.

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+resource (adding cloze notes) and adds scope detail ('one or many') plus a dry-run qualifier. It is distinguishable from sibling propose_add_notes only by the word 'cloze', with no explicit statement of how the two differ.

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?

'Dry run' implies the caller must later apply the result, but the description never mentions apply_plan/reject_plan or when to choose this over propose_add_notes. Usage must be inferred from the naming convention and sibling list.

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