propose_add_notes

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true), but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the exact checks the dry run performs (exact duplicates skipped, same-front-different-back left to the user, similar fronts flagged, tags checked against taxonomy) and reinforces that nothing is written. That is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs to interpret the result.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the dry-run nature, then the check list, then the next-step instruction. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 read-only preview with no output schema, the description covers purpose, validation behavior, and the follow-up workflow. The only gap is that the returned plan/scan results and the deck argument's semantics are not described, but annotations and the small schema keep that minor.

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%, so the description must carry the meaning of deck and notes. It explains the front/back structure and that tags are validated against a taxonomy, which adds real semantic value, but the deck parameter is never mentioned and the notes array shape is only partially implied. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource ('Dry run for adding basic (front/back) notes, one or many'), and 'basic (front/back)' implicitly separates this from the cloze-note sibling. An agent can tell the operation apart from propose_add_cloze_notes or propose_update_note without reading any schema.

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 gives clear context — this is the preview step, and 'call apply_plan after the user sees it' names the required follow-up explicitly. It does not call out alternatives by name (e.g. cloze notes or update), so the selection guidance is clear but not fully exclusive.

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