add_notes

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: automatic 'mcp-added' tagging, per-note validation rules (deck, note type, field names, duplicate first field), partial-success semantics (invalid notes skipped, valid ones still added), and the internet dependency for audio that is skipped in dry_run. With annotations only declaring openWorld/idempotent/destructive hints, this text carries the real behavioral burden well.

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?

Front-loads the action and the preconditions, then validation behavior, then performance advice, then audio. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does explain that invalid notes are 'reported and skipped', giving a rough sense of the result. It does not detail the shape of validation errors or the response of a successful batch, but for an add tool it is nearly complete.

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 coverage is only 33%, but the description compensates for the important parameters: it explains dry_run ('validate only; add nothing'), the audio pronunciation generation, and batching of the notes array. It leaves allow_duplicates unexplained in the description, which is the one remaining 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Add one or more notes') and immediately describes the user-visible side effect (each note tagged 'mcp-added'). The write semantics clearly separate it from read-only siblings list_decks, search_notes, get_notes, and get_weak_cards, and list_decks is explicitly referenced.

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?

States the hard precondition (only decks with source='anki'; Yanki decks rejected), points to list_decks for checking, advises batching over many single-note calls, and explains when to use dry_run and audio. Both when-to-use and when-not are covered explicitly.

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