Generate a dry-run plan to delete up to 50 Anki notes by ID, including review history, for human approval before changes.
Dry run for deleting notes (and their review history). Off unless the user enabled it in the config; at most 50 ids, no delete-by-query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Consistent with readOnlyHint=true: 'dry run' makes clear no deletion occurs. Beyond annotations it discloses the affected scope (notes and their review history), a config gate, and a 50-id cap, which are useful behavioral details. It doesn't address the proposal lifecycle or whether the request is reversible.
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 tight sentences with the key qualifier ('dry run') front-loaded, followed by the constraints. No filler or repetition.
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 one-parameter dry-run tool with no output schema and annotations covering its safety profile, the description supplies the essential prerequisites and limits. The main omission is how the resulting proposal is acted on by sibling tools like apply_plan/reject_plan.
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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. 'At most 50 ids' merely restates the schema's maxItems=50, and 'no delete-by-query' only implicitly clarifies that explicit integer ids are required. It adds marginal meaning over the schema.
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 and resource: a dry run for deleting notes plus their review history. It clearly distinguishes itself from destructive siblings by being a non-mutating dry run. It does not explicitly name how it relates to apply_plan/reject_plan, but the 'propose_' naming and 'dry run' wording make the role inferable.
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?
Gives a real precondition ('off unless the user enabled it in the config') and hard constraints ('at most 50 ids, no delete-by-query'). This tells an agent when the call is valid and its limits. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., how to obtain ids or how the proposal is consumed).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.