grade_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses the 0-5 quality scale, SM-2 scheduling, and the returned next-due date/correct answer. However, it does not explicitly state whether the grade is persisted or how the item's scheduling state is updated, which is a meaningful side-effect gap.

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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the action, then efficiently packs the scale, return values, and algorithm into the remainder. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the invocation context, the grading scale, the scheduling algorithm, and the key return values. Minor gaps remain around exact output format and whether the grade permanently mutates stored state, but the description is largely sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 compensate. It does explain the key parameter 'quality' with concrete anchors (0, 3, 5) and ties 'item_id' to the item being reviewed. It does not give explicit numeric bounds/validation for quality, but the 0-5 range is clearly communicated.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Grade recall quality') and names the resource ('an item just reviewed'), then explains the grading scale and what the tool returns. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_item or get_due_items, which perform different actions.

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 phrase 'for an item just reviewed' gives clear contextual guidance on when to call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the sibling tools perform the same grading function, so the usage context is sufficient.

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