add_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, omitting details like error handling, duplicate behavior, or required deck/model existence. The schema provides structure but no behavioral context.

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 sentence of 9 words, making it concise. However, it may be too brief to fully inform the agent, but conciseness is appropriately sized for a simple action.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter (fields), the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or required existence of deck/model. The schema covers parameters but not context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value (e.g., 'note (card)' clarification) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Add a new note (card) to Anki'. It uses a specific verb (Add) and resource (note/card), and the context (Anki) distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_notes or update_note.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_note or get_note_info. There are no mentions of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions.

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